Barnett Contract Extension Update

[HarveyWallbangers]

Barnett talks moving slowly
But linebacker expects to get a deal
By TOM SILVERSTEIN, Journal Sentinel

Anyone who knows linebacker Nick Barnett knows he's not a patient guy.

He wants the season to start right away, he wants this to be the year the Green Bay Packers rank No. 1 in defense and he'd like to win a Super Bowl.

And, oh yeah, one other thing: He'd like a big, fat contract.

On the former, Barnett finds it hard to wait. On the latter, he is letting things work themselves out.

Barnett has been a regular at the Packers' off-season conditioning program, choosing to take a different route than cornerback Mike McKenzie and wide receiver Javon Walker did when money became an issue with the Packers. He figures not preparing for the upcoming season will hurt him regardless if he has a new contract when the season begins.

"I want it to get done; it's on my mind, but not that much," Barnett said after a workout at the Packers' facility. "I don't really have a problem waiting a year and then going to free agency. There's the benefit of that vs. what I would get right now."

Barnett and his agent, Chuck Price, both think the linebacker has outperformed his rookie contract, which was essentially worth $6 million over five years, and calls for him to be paid $1.95 million in 2007. The former first-round pick has led the team in tackles three of his four seasons, finishing second behind rookie A.J. Hawk last season.

He has been both durable and consistent, starting all but two games in four seasons, and compiling more than 600 tackles during that time. The only thing lacking from his game has been game-changing plays, which separate great players from good ones.

In 62 games, he has seven interceptions, eight sacks, one forced fumble and one touchdown.

Still, the Packers have high regard for what Barnett does in their defense and are sincerely interested in locking him up through a long-term deal. The two sides have been talking off and on, but discussions have heated up recently with the draft serving as an artificial deadline to get something done.

"We're having conversations," Price said. "It's too early to tell whether he'll have a new deal or he'll be a free agent next year. We'll see where it goes."

Barnett, 25, would like to go where some other free-agent linebackers have gone this off-season, which is a signing bonus of around $10 million to $20 million. New England's Adalius Thomas, who received $20 million in guaranteed money from the Patriots, stands at the high end and Kansas City's Napoleon Harris, who received $7.5 million to sign, lies at the low end.

In the middle are Miami's Joey Porter (around $13 million guaranteed) and Washington's London Fletcher ($10.5 million in bonuses). Also factored in are deals signed a year ago by St. Louis' Will Witherspoon and Washington's Andre Carter ($9 million in bonuses) and Seattle's Julian Peterson ($13.5 million in bonuses).

The Packers probably want to know if they'll have Barnett on board before they go into the draft so they can cross linebacker off their wish list. In turn, Barnett would like to get a deal done before the draft so he can be sure he's in the team's plans beyond this year.

"I believe there has been positive progress," Barnett said. "But until we get closer to the ballpark for both of us, then I'll start getting happy. But I'm happy with the progress. I'm not trying to force their hand and they're not trying to force mine. It's been a good process; it's just I would like it to be done."

As Barnett waits, he has attempted to put all his energy into getting ready for the 2007 season. The Packers have all 11 defensive starters back from last year and are hoping to see young players such as defensive tackle Johnny Jolly, cornerback Will Blackmon, safety Charlie Peprah and linebacker Abdul Hodge take big steps this off-season.

All but two veterans on defense - cornerbacks Al Harris and Charles Woodson - are attending the off-season program, which Barnett considers a good sign. He has tried to take on a leadership role, figuring that if others see him at work they'll know he's serious about this season.

"A lot of guys come up to me and say, 'Man, they haven't done nothing for you yet?' and I just say, 'Don't worry about that, just worry about being the No. 1 defense and that stuff will come.'"

Barnett said he hadn't dwelled on general manager Ted Thompson's unwillingness to utilize the free-agent market beyond nickel back Frank Walker because he doesn't think the defense needs any help. He said he was trusting Thompson to find someone to replace departed running back Ahman Green and fill various other needs on offense.

"It's hard to throw money at players you don't know," Barnett said of free agency. "I'm sure Ted's going to work it out. (Vernand) Morency is a great back, and I can see them doing something in the draft. We'll see what happens."

[LL2]

Barnett talks moving slowly
But linebacker expects to get a deal
By TOM SILVERSTEIN, Journal Sentinel

"A lot of guys come up to me and say, 'Man, they haven't done nothing for you yet?' and I just say, 'Don't worry about that, just worry about being the No. 1 defense and that stuff will come.'

If this is truly his attitude and approach then awesome. I think he’s somewhere between above average and great. I think it would be fair to give him guaranteed money between 10 – 15 mil. I definitely think he’s worth keeping. Locking up Barnett (and Williams) allows the Pack to know they will be solid with the front seven for a good 3-5 years. Letting him go into next season without a new deal would be a HUGE risk by TT and some team desperate for a better than average LB will pay him an obscene amount of money.

[BallHawk]

If there's a guy you want to give an extension to, Ted, it's this guy.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

If there's a guy you want to give an extension to, Ted, it's this guy.

I agree, if he's not signing free agents, he better sign our own.

[oregonpackfan]

If there's a guy you want to give an extension to, Ted, it's this guy.

I agree, if he's not signing free agents, he better sign our own.

Amen to both of those statements!

[Packnut]

I agree that Thompson need's to get this deal done. However, my reasoning is not because he deserves the big money. It's because we have nothing better to replace him. Barnett is an above avg LB but by no means is he in the same class with some of the names being mentioned.

Has he ever made a game changing play? I sure can't remember one. I just can't see giving a 10 mil signing bonus to a guy who makes the majority of his tackles on his side of the line. Also, he's no where near a guy like Urlacher when it comes to pass coverage.

Yeah, he says all the right things but that does'nt translate to great play on the field. If Hodge would have shown anything, I think Barnett's bargaining power would be limited, but since Hodge tanked, no choice but to pay. Still, Thompson does have some leverage and should stress the risk associated with Barnett getting injured this season and ruining that huge pay-day that Nick is looking for.

I believe a 7-8 mill signing bonus is more than fair.

[CaptainKickass]

Give him a decent duration like 3-5 years, and a modest up front bonus like 6-11 mil to show him the love. But then also add the opprtunity to make more $$$ based on production - particularily big, game changing plays like INT's, TD's, fumbles and fumble recoveries, and sacks as well as tackles for loss etc, etc.

The Packers have had a bit of success with the production based contracts (IE: Woodson). This keeps the football players heads in the game where it should be. I really love the production based pay model because it is a truly win/win for the player and the organization and I strongly believe that we will see a migration of many NFL teams moving toward this kind of contract. Pay for play. The highest producers get more $$$. No one can cry and whine about how their "underpaid" or "undervalued" or "I outperformed my contract" with this type of model.

Now - go get it done TT!

[GBRulz]

Barnett, 25, would like to go where some other free-agent linebackers have gone this off-season, which is a signing bonus of around $10 million to $20 million.

I thought Barnett was quoted as saying he isn't looking for a deal to break the bank? I agree with Packnut about his lack of game changing plays. However, he is the best we have and we need to keep him. TT needs to get this deal done. I wonder though if he isn't planning on waiting until he sees what kind of progress Hodges makes though.

[Partial]

He doesn't want a huge deal is my guess, but he probably wants a good amount of it guaranteed. Thank god Adalius Thomas took a small 5 year, 36 mil deal that we can use as leverage.

A good amount of the contract is guaranteed, but the overall amount is not that high. I think we could do something similiar for Barnett since he missed what, one game so far? Doing that would also keep his cap number nice and low.

[Patler]

Give him a decent duration like 3-5 years, and a modest up front bonus like 6-11 mil to show him the love. But then also add the opprtunity to make more $$$ based on production - particularily big, game changing plays like INT's, TD's, fumbles and fumble recoveries, and sacks as well as tackles for loss etc, etc.

The Packers have had a bit of success with the production based contracts (IE: Woodson). This keeps the football players heads in the game where it should be. I really love the production based pay model because it is a truly win/win for the player and the organization and I strongly believe that we will see a migration of many NFL teams moving toward this kind of contract. Pay for play. The highest producers get more $$$. No one can cry and whine about how their "underpaid" or "undervaluse" or "I outperformed my contract" with this type of model.

Now - go get it done TT!

Woodson et al have not had production based contracts, just availability based contracts. Their bonuses are related to being on the game day roster, regardless of how they perform. A similar bonus structure for Barnett would have little impact.

The only one that had a legitimate performance based contract was Green. His bonus was based on yards from scrimmage.

[LL2]

Give him a decent duration like 3-5 years, and a modest up front bonus like 6-11 mil to show him the love. But then also add the opprtunity to make more $$$ based on production - particularily big, game changing plays like INT's, TD's, fumbles and fumble recoveries, and sacks as well as tackles for loss etc, etc.

The Packers have had a bit of success with the production based contracts (IE: Woodson). This keeps the football players heads in the game where it should be. I really love the production based pay model because it is a truly win/win for the player and the organization and I strongly believe that we will see a migration of many NFL teams moving toward this kind of contract. Pay for play. The highest producers get more $$$. No one can cry and whine about how their "underpaid" or "undervaluse" or "I outperformed my contract" with this type of model.

Now - go get it done TT!

Woodson et al have not had production based contracts, just availability based contracts. Their bonuses are related to being on the game day roster, regardless of how they perform. A similar bonus structure for Barnett would have little impact.

The only one that had a legitimate performance based contract was Green. His bonus was based on yards from scrimmage.

There goes smarty pants setting the record straight again! :P

[CaptainKickass]

Woodson et al have not had production based contracts, just availability based contracts. Their bonuses are related to being on the game day roster, regardless of how they perform. A similar bonus structure for Barnett would have little impact.

Patler - You can split hairs about the terminology difference between "performance" and "availability" all you want but the point is still the same:

The concern with Woodson coming to GB was his "injury prone" title and missing time on the field. Woodson's contract was such that he earned more by being on the field on game day, as well as bonuses for production - like making the pro bowl for example. He was nicked up for a bunch of games last year and yet he somehow kept "finding" a way to get back on the field because he knew his opportunity for bigger $$$ depended on it.

All I'm saying here is let's take that "overall concept" (Big picture here) and apply it to Barnett's contract.

He's been dependable and reliable - tough to argue that.

What's missing?

"Game changing plays"

Give him a contract with a bonus in the "ballpark" of other players at his position and tenure, but stack it with motivational bonuses tied to the teams desire for him to achieve more "Game changing plays".

This will set him up to be motivated to do whatever he needs to do to get up to that level. If his production stays the same, then the Packers got that type of player for an at market value. Win/win.

[Patler]

My point is that the Packers have NOT used performance based contracts, like you suggested. Green was the only one, and it makes some sense for a runningback who had been injured. I would be surprised to see a linebacker accept a contract with any substantial part of his income tied to any stat other than tackles. Thats what LBs do, they tackle people. Barnett has no deficiency in that area.

What are you going to do, offer him $500,000 per interception or forced fumble? I think that is a bit unworkable. The differences between "good" and "average" can be just a couple. It certainly can't be a subjective standard, like "game changing". Who would decide if his interception in the 2nd quarter was "game changing" or not when they win by 1?

Urlacher had 0 sacks, 3 interceptions and 1 forced fumble in 2006.
Barnett had 2 sacks, 2 interceptions and 0 forced fumbles in 2006.
On what criteria do you reward Urlacher and not Barnett, if Urlacher makes the plays you want Barnett to make?

[CaptainKickass]

Who would decide if his interception in the 2nd quarter was "game changing" or not?

Based on your rhetoric - I'm thinking you would be the perfect candidate to devise just such a plan Patler. :lol:

And by your own admission - the Pack has employed both the situational and performance based contracts. There have been other teams in the league who also have.

Furthermore - If there was anyone who could sweat the details and ensure that there were no potential interpretation flaws - that would certainly also be you.

As an exercise - Why don't you take off your "static knowledge" cap and put on your "creative thinking" cap to come up with something that might just suit both of our points - or, more to the point - Barnett and the Pack?

I'll prime the engine for you too:

How about as a starter - you run the average of the top 5 MLB's in each "big play" category for the entire NFL at his position for....oh I don't know.... let's say the previous 3 years.

Then - you design escalating bonuses for attaining that threshold and then of course bump it up for exceeding the threshold.

Lets say (pulling numbers out of my ass here) a 250k bonus for achieveing it and then - I actually kind of liked your target of 500k - for exceeding the highest of those previous 3 years. That way when he does make those "1 or 2 plays" that are exactly the difference between average and great, he can pocket an extra mil or 2 and not feel cheated. The Pack get's that extra 10% effort and hustle out of him that's been keeping him stuck with the label of "good" rather than "excellent".

I'm no accountant - but there seems to be plenty of flexibility regarding cash bonus for elite production. If my feeble mathematical mind and apparent lack of contractual knowledge can devise such an outline, then certainly Patler can do the dillegence to make it into something easily digested.

Can you live up to it Patler?

Will you use your power for good?...........or for Awesome!?

[MJZiggy]

Just a minor detail here, but what if we give him a new, wonderful, big play based contract and he gets so wound up in trying to make the spectacular interception or forced fumble, that he blows tackling the guy with the ball? Doesn't it then become big play or blown coverage? And the times he does make the big play make him earn the escalators in the contract.

[CaptainKickass]

Just a minor detail here, but what if we give him a new, wonderful, big play based contract and he gets so wound up in trying to make the spectacular interception or forced fumble, that he blows tackling the guy with the ball? Doesn't it then become big play or blown coverage? And the times he does make the big play make him earn the escalators in the contract.

Good question Zig -

That's why the "threshold" becomes important. And yes - "tackles" should obviously be one of the categories.

It's not like he would only get paid for the big play - his contract and performance thus far have indeed warranted an extension. I'm just thinking creatively to get him to give us that extra bit that is the difference between good and great. And also to make the contract digestable and fair to all involved.

Last thing we need is for him to hit his payday and see his production taper off. We need to use ca$h to motivate him to become even better.


:)

[Rastak]

Just a minor detail here, but what if we give him a new, wonderful, big play based contract and he gets so wound up in trying to make the spectacular interception or forced fumble, that he blows tackling the guy with the ball? Doesn't it then become big play or blown coverage? And the times he does make the big play make him earn the escalators in the contract.

That's what I was thinking. That doesn;t exactly promote team play.

[Tony Oday]

Best reason to resign him this year is it will cost more next year because the cap will go up again! :) Sign him 10 million up front show Barnett the love.

[MadtownPacker]

Watch out Capt, you are playing with a deadly individual!!

Barnett aint going anywhere. I have no doubt TT will get it handled. Barnett while not spectacular has always been solid IMO. Dont forget he had a different DC his first 3 or 4 seasons. Now he also has Hawk. Add another good LB and they are the strength of the defense.

[Patler]

How about as a starter - you run the average of the top 5 MLB's in each "big play" category for the entire NFL at his position for....oh I don't know.... let's say the previous 3 years.

Then - you design escalating bonuses for attaining that threshold and then of course bump it up for exceeding the threshold.

Lets say (pulling numbers out of my ass here) a 250k bonus for achieveing it and then - I actually kind of liked your target of 500k - for exceeding the highest of those previous 3 years. That way when he does make those "1 or 2 plays" that are exactly the difference between average and great, he can pocket an extra mil or 2 and not feel cheated. The Pack get's that extra 10% effort and hustle out of him that's been keeping him stuck with the label of "good" rather than "excellent".



You were the one who suggested an incentive plan should be in Barnett's contract, so why don't you propose one? Support your own idea. Quite frankly, I don't think it can work for a linebacker.

What in the heck is a "big play"? Who will decide? Are you going to go to arbitration and film reviews by a panel of "big play" experts? Is every interception a "big play"? Is every interception returned 95 yards for a TD a "big play"? Even if you are leading by 42 points?

[MadtownPacker]

Is every interception a "big play"? Is every interception returned 95 yards for a TD a "big play"? Even if you are leading by 42 points?If it was darra sharper would be even richer!

[Patler]

Is every interception a "big play"? Is every interception returned 95 yards for a TD a "big play"? Even if you are leading by 42 points?If it was darra sharper would be even richer!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[CaptainKickass]

There are 5 reasons why performance incentives will work:

A. pay bonus for achievements the player has yet to make

2. design the incentives in such a way so as to avoid the player feeling undervalued or that he has outperformed his new contract in the coming years after the new contract is signed.

D. motivate the individual to continue to progress so there is, at the very least, no drop off in performance due to the new contract and sizable bonus.

:lol:

[wist43]

Just a minor detail here, but what if we give him a new, wonderful, big play based contract and he gets so wound up in trying to make the spectacular interception or forced fumble, that he blows tackling the guy with the ball? Doesn't it then become big play or blown coverage? And the times he does make the big play make him earn the escalators in the contract.

He'd never agree to incentives... he's simply not a big play LB, and never will be.

He's fast, he covers a lot of ground, and he makes a lot of tackles - he'll never be a sack guy, or a guy who is going to force fumbles. He plays the game small, he hits small, he's a drag down tackler - which contributes to his missed tackle totals - he's just not an impact guy - never will be.

[Patler]

There are 5 reasons why performance incentives will work:

A. pay bonus for achievements the player has yet to make

2. design the incentives in such a way so as to avoid the player feeling undervalued or that he has outperformed his new contract in the coming years after the new contract is signed.

D. motivate the individual to continue to progress so there is, at the very least, no drop off in performance due to the new contract and sizable bonus.

:lol:

That's a very nice theory, but the practical application is difficult for Barnett's situation. By your theory, did neither Barnett nor Urlacher "earn" bonuses in 2006, or did they both "earn" bonuses? If one did but not the other, what criteria is it based on?

Apply your theory to the facts of 2006. I would like to know how you think it would have worked for those two players in 2006.

[Patler]

He's fast, he covers a lot of ground, and he makes a lot of tackles - he'll never be a sack guy, or a guy who is going to force fumbles. He plays the game small, he hits small, he's a drag down tackler - which contributes to his missed tackle totals - he's just not an impact guy - never will be.

I agree with that description completely. The peculiar thing to me about Barnett is that, with his speed and his quickness, he should be a better blitzer than he is. I've never figured out why he can't seem to get a feel for it.

My only thought is this: As a blitzing liinebacker, you have to accept that at times you might get crushed on a blitz pickup you don't see coming, or that hits you awkwardly even if you do see it coming. It takes more "wreckless abandon" than Barnett is willing to play with. He blitzes straight into a blocker, and stops. Probably not physical enough to be effective.

[CaptainKickass]

Stats calculated from: http://www.nfl.com/stats/playersort/NFL/LB-TACKLES/2005/regular

2006
LB INT's top 5 average = 4.2
LB Tackles top 5 average = 109 tackles
LB Forced Fumbles top 5 average = 4
LB Touchdowns top 5 average = .6
LB sacks top 5 average = 9.3
LB Fumble recoveries = 3

Barnett:

Int's = 1
Tackles = 138
Forced Fumbles = 1
Touchdowns = 0
Sacks = 1
Fumble recoveries = 3

So if the threshold = the top 5 average in any category - then Barnett would have met the threshold in 2 categories and exceeded it in one.

If the bonus for meeting the threshold in any category is $250k and lets say another $250k for exceeding the threshold in tackles (he actually ranked 3rd in that area) then Barnett would have earned himself an additional $750k on top of his base salary for last season if we applied it going forward.

Draw your own conclusions. That's what we are here for.

[Patler]

If I represent Barnett, I object to having mutually exclusive incentives (sacks and interceptions) If you expect him to cover (and get interceptions) he can't blitz and get sacks, and vice versa.

I would also object to an incentive of any significant amount for scoring one lousy touchdown. Also seems like a bad critera.

I previously indicated there was some sense in an incentive for tackles.

[Tony Oday]

Just give him the money. He outplayed his rookie contract and very serviceable in the middle and I think he will be much better as a OLB.

[MadtownPacker]

I think this would also be a huge negative on the team from a FA perspective. Barnett has taken alot of crap (critics, DJs, his club)and still played well. A lesser player might have caved.

[pbmax]

Perhaps I am missing something, but by my count Barnett has met ONE criteria (fumble recoveries) and exceeded ONE other (tackles).

My signature used to say Pay the All-Pros, replace the rest. Barnett fills the role of the Mike in this defense in the minimum way possible. He has the speed to cover his responsibilities and make the tackles. That's it.

He is competent in coverage. He is not a big run stuffer, nor does he diagnose quickly.

I hope for a Kampman contract, one that looks like a possible monster until you measure it against the rest a year later. And then, like Kampman, I hope he outperforms it. But we shouldn't break the bank.


Stats calculated from: http://www.nfl.com/stats/playersort/NFL/LB-TACKLES/2005/regular

2006
LB INT's top 5 average = 4.2
LB Tackles top 5 average = 109 tackles
LB Forced Fumbles top 5 average = 4
LB Touchdowns top 5 average = .6
LB sacks top 5 average = 9.3
LB Fumble recoveries = 3

Barnett:

Int's = 1
Tackles = 138
Forced Fumbles = 1
Touchdowns = 0
Sacks = 1
Fumble recoveries = 3

So if the threshold = the top 5 average in any category - then Barnett would have met the threshold in 2 categories and exceeded it in one.

If the bonus for meeting the threshold in any category is $250k and lets say another $250k for exceeding the threshold in tackles (he actually ranked 3rd in that area) then Barnett would have earned himself an additional $750k on top of his base salary for last season if we applied it going forward.

Draw your own conclusions. That's what we are here for.

[OKC PackerFan]

KFFL

Packers | Contract discussion regarding Barnett heating up
Sat, 7 Apr 2007 07:36:12 -0700

Tom Silverstein, of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, reports talks between the Green Bay Packers and LB Nick Barnett's agent, Chuck Price, have heated up recently. "We're having conversations. It's too early to tell whether he'll have a new deal or he'll be a free agent next year. We'll see where it goes," Price said. Barnett would like a new contract, but he is attending the team's offseason conditioning program. "I believe there has been positive progress. But until we get closer to the ballpark for both of us, then I'll start getting happy. But I'm happy with the progress. I'm not trying to force their hand and they're not trying to force mine. It's been a good process; it's just I would like it to be done," Barnett said.

[Merlin]

1) 4 Different defensive coordinators in 4 years.
2) Played LB only 1 year in college after playing safety.
3) Lead the team in tackles 3 out of 4 years.
4) 2006 was the first season where the LB's around him didn't change every game.
5) Is arguably the best cover MLB in the nfl.
6) City of Green Bay has been less then receptive to his business ventures.
7) Missed only 2 games in 4 years.
8) Has not had a good defensive line in front of him yet.

I would say that for everything those that think he is average, there are far more things that prove he is above average. Take MLB Urlacher as the example. Urlacher get's dragged around on tackles, he wiffs on tackles, he over pursues, he get's eaten up by the OL. He is a better LB how? I'll tell you how, the media focused in on him because the Bears had NO ONE when he came to town. The same could be said for AJ Hawk. The media focused so much attention on him that when he makes a play he's the best damn LB in the league, when he wiffs one, they don't say anything (ala Urlacher). Barnett has made a lot of good plays, far more then he has wiffed. The media doesn't say a thing either way because he is a no name. Fans being human, focus on the negative and don't see the forest between the trees. When AJ Hawk signed with us a majority of the fans thought he was the second coming. He did a great job, however he wouldn't have been able to do a great job if someone else wasn't there, Nick Barnett. In the one game Barnett missed, I believe we gave up over 200 yards rushing. AJ Hawk was playing, it wasn't all on Hodge. Barnett pursues to the play as well as any LB in the game. In fact, he over pursued less this season than Urlacher did for the Bears. The biggest downfall on Barnett was his over pursuit, he had bad angles and yeah, he wiffed some. Gee, AJ Hawk did the same thing. I am not saying AJ Hawk sucks but put things in perspective. Quit looking at the handful of plays the guy gave up and start looking at his positive contributions to the team. And for God's sake, quit listening to what the media says about most players. They have their favorites too.

[oregonpackfan]

Excellent points, Merlin!

I have grown very weary over the years of the negative comments given to Barnett by detractors over the past 4 years.

Barnett has become the convenient "Whipping Boy" for those finding fault with the Packers' defense. In fact, he has been the most productive and dependable Packer defender, save Al Harris, during that 4 year stretch.

Barnett detractors also need to remember that this 4 year veteran is still only 25 years old. He is just coming into his physical prime. With more experience and better players around him, I see Barnett's quality of play improving.

[Patler]

1) 4 Different defensive coordinators in 4 years.
2) Played LB only 1 year in college after playing safety.
3) Lead the team in tackles 3 out of 4 years.
4) 2006 was the first season where the LB's around him didn't change every game.
5) Is arguably the best cover MLB in the nfl.
6) City of Green Bay has been less then receptive to his business ventures.
7) Missed only 2 games in 4 years.
8) Has not had a good defensive line in front of him yet.


I will have to argue with several of your points. If I am wrong, I would like to know where your information comes from, as I'm always looking for new sources!

Re:2) above - According to his bio, as a freshman in college he started in preseason as a linebacker, was moved to safety and played. As a sophmore he moved back to linebacker, and became a starter. Was a preseason pick for the Butkus award going into his Senior year, so I assume he played as a linbacker as a Junior to even be on the Butkus award radar. It looks like he played 3 years as a linebacker.

Re:4) above - Diggs and Navies each started all 16 games in 2003, per the NFL. In 2004, Diggs started 14 and Navies started 15. Lenon started the 3 games that Diggs and Navies missed. 2005 was the only season in which the starters around him changed a lot.

Re:5) above - I think Barnett is a good cover linebacker, but I'm not sure you can support a statement that he is "arguably the best".

Re:8) above - Maybe not the best, but certainly not the worst D-lines in front of him. Playing behind Grady Jackson and Ryan Pickett would make most mlbs pretty happy. Both will tie up a couple blcokers to let the mlb free to pursue.

[oregonpackfan]

Patler,

Re 2). I am not sure how many years Barnett played safety or linebacker at Oregon State.

I am sure, however, is that when he played linebacker, Barnett always played OUTSIDE linebacker. He NEVER played middle linebacker at OSU.

So what did the Packers do? They took a guy who never played middle linebacker in college and expected him to start at middle linebacker in the pros as a rookie.

The MLB position is probably the most challening defensive position in pro football. To take a rookie with no experience and expect him to start and excell at MLB is a sign the Packers were weak at the linebacker position, in general.

That he has performed well in the pros under 4 different Defense Coordinators in 4 years is a sign of his adaptability. This is another reason why TT needs to make re-signing Barnett a top priority, IMO.

[Patler]

Patler,

Re 2). I am not sure how many years Barnett played safety or linebacker at Oregon State.

I am sure, however, is that when he played linebacker, Barnett always played OUTSIDE linebacker. He NEVER played middle linebacker at OSU.

So what did the Packers do? They took a guy who never played middle linebacker in college and expected him to start at middle linebacker in the pros as a rookie.

The MLB position is probably the most challening defensive position in pro football. To take a rookie with no experience and expect him to start and excell at MLB is a sign the Packers were weak at the linebacker position, in general.

That he has performed well in the pros under 4 different Defense Coordinators in 4 years is a sign of his adaptability. This is another reason why TT needs to make re-signing Barnett a top priority, IMO.

I don't disagree with most of that. I have argued time and again that having a different DC each year has probably stunted his development as a pro. Moving from the outside to the inside certainly requires an adjustment, but I think a lot of outside linebackers would relish it, and I don't think it takes a pro years to adapt to it. Pro teams move players all the time, to put them where they are best suited for the professional game. Barnett did fine with the move.

I'm not a Barnett basher by any stretch of the imagination

[oregonpackfan]

Patler,

I have never accused you of being a "Barnett Basher."

There are others, both on this forum and other forums, who continually disparage Barnett's contributions to the team. I grow weary of them.

[Bretsky]

We have to keep Barnett; he's an above average MLB and I think he'd be an above average OLB as well.

[b bulldog]

I think he wlould be a better WLB than a MLB. I actually think Hawk and Barnett could switch positions and they both would benfit from it.

[Bretsky]

I think he wlould be a better WLB than a MLB. I actually think Hawk and Barnett could switch positions and they both would benfit from it.

I think Hawk and Barnett are the keepers; if a great LB falls to TT I'd be for him selecting if he's the best player available

[b bulldog]

I think AJ's physicality,speed and instinct would better suit the team in the middle and Nick's speed and coverage abilites would be better suited to the weak side.

[Merlin]

Patler,

I didn't look it up. I seem to remember the big knock on him that the "analysts" said is that he was a converted safety and that he only played one full season as a linebacker. I know that he didn't play LB every year in college, outside of that you may be right, either way, he is playing out of position.

I don't remember Diggs playing more then 1 full season in the last three he was with us. He was oft injured. Navies only started one season. The NFL can list "starts" but that's a far cry from finishing. Lenon got more playing time then "3 games". I seem to remember him in at least every other game. Then you have a few others mixed in there as well with yes, 2005 being a joke. But he really did not have the same people around him for the duration of a season like he did in 2006, and those were both rookies for the most part. He is arguably the best cover LB in the league, otherwise you would agree with me :)! Also, it isn't just "one guy" that makes the line good. Although Jackson and Pickett occupy space, it wasn't until late last season when Barnett had a broken hand that I finally thought we have a good DL in the four years he has been with us. When you rush 4 guys on 5 OL and sometimes a TE and only 1 is getting a double team, that leaves 4-5 guys to block 3. Not what I would exactly call a hearty DL. I fully expect this season to be way different. I think you will see teams trying to double up on Jenkins and Kampman more and Picket and whoever else gets the start each opening big holes for the LB's to take advantage of.

[Patler]

Patler,

I don't remember Diggs playing more then 1 full season in the last three he was with us. He was oft injured. Navies only started one season. The NFL can list "starts" but that's a far cry from finishing. Lenon got more playing time then "3 games". I seem to remember him in at least every other game. Then you have a few others mixed in there as well with yes, 2005 being a joke. But he really did not have the same people around him for the duration of a season like he did in 2006, and those were both rookies for the most part. He is arguably the best cover LB in the league, otherwise you would agree with me :)! Also, it isn't just "one guy" that makes the line good. Although Jackson and Pickett occupy space, it wasn't until late last season when Barnett had a broken hand that I finally thought we have a good DL in the four years he has been with us. When you rush 4 guys on 5 OL and sometimes a TE and only 1 is getting a double team, that leaves 4-5 guys to block 3. Not what I would exactly call a hearty DL. I fully expect this season to be way different. I think you will see teams trying to double up on Jenkins and Kampman more and Picket and whoever else gets the start each opening big holes for the LB's to take advantage of.

Now you're just seem to be making things up.
Barnett, Diggs and Navies were 1,2 and 3 in tackles for GB in 2003.
Barnett and Diggs were 1 and 2 in 2004, followed by Roman, Sharper Kampman and Navies.
Diggs was dinged up a number of years, but always played. That was his big complaint in 2005, that they didn't give him a chance to play. As he said, he always played in the past, even when nicked up. Lenon played some but not a lot until 2005. Navies and Diggs started and finished the games, for the most part.

"Arguably the best cover linebacker"? Based on what? Certainly not interceptions or passes defensed.

DTs are the most responsible for keeping the middle linbacker clean, and Jackson and Picket were very good at it. I'm not suggesting the Packer line has been great, but it hasn't been awful either.

[the_idle_threat]

The key word is "arguably."

Arguably, you are the best cover linebacker in the NFL, Patler.

:mrgreen:

[falco]

Up until the last season Diggs rarely missed playing time.

He's one player I wish TT would have kept.

[Patler]

The key word is "arguably."

Arguably, you are the best cover linebacker in the NFL, Patler.

:mrgreen:

Good point!

[Bretsky]

Up until the last season Diggs rarely missed playing time.

He's one player I wish TT would have kept.


I agree; always liked Diggs. Never a superstar, but he was a gamer.

[The Shadow]

It would be intriguing to add Paul Posluzny to the mix.

[Bretsky]

It would be intriguing to add Paul Posluzny to the mix.


Yes, he really seems like a gamer. I'm still not at all convinced Poppinga is starting material

[KYPack]

Well, well.

A balanced thread on Barnett, that's a change.

Say what you will about Nick, the guy is a lightning rod for controversy.

I'd basically agree with that calm, voice of reason, MTP!

Barnett has been a good player and will continue to improve. He is already one of the best Mikes in cover, he has shown that he can learn and grow. Let's sign his ass in the interest of continuity.

That LB bunch should be one of the better LB groupings in the league as long as we get some better play out of the SAM. Hawk is a baby superstar and these guys can give us great pass coverage, let's stick with 'em.

[BallHawk]

It would be intriguing to add Paul Posluzny to the mix.


Yes, he really seems like a gamer. I'm still not at all convinced Poppinga is starting material

What do you think of Posluzny compared to Patrick Willis?

[Bretsky]

It would be intriguing to add Paul Posluzny to the mix.


Yes, he really seems like a gamer. I'm still not at all convinced Poppinga is starting material

What do you think of Posluzny compared to Patrick Willis?

I like both, but I just think Patrick Willis is a step ahead of him talent wise. PP could be a very solid player; Willis has the ability if he grows to be a star.

[Merlin]

Patler,

I don't remember Diggs playing more then 1 full season in the last three he was with us. He was oft injured. Navies only started one season. The NFL can list "starts" but that's a far cry from finishing. Lenon got more playing time then "3 games". I seem to remember him in at least every other game. Then you have a few others mixed in there as well with yes, 2005 being a joke. But he really did not have the same people around him for the duration of a season like he did in 2006, and those were both rookies for the most part. He is arguably the best cover LB in the league, otherwise you would agree with me :)! Also, it isn't just "one guy" that makes the line good. Although Jackson and Pickett occupy space, it wasn't until late last season when Barnett had a broken hand that I finally thought we have a good DL in the four years he has been with us. When you rush 4 guys on 5 OL and sometimes a TE and only 1 is getting a double team, that leaves 4-5 guys to block 3. Not what I would exactly call a hearty DL. I fully expect this season to be way different. I think you will see teams trying to double up on Jenkins and Kampman more and Picket and whoever else gets the start each opening big holes for the LB's to take advantage of.

Now you're just seem to be making things up.
Barnett, Diggs and Navies were 1,2 and 3 in tackles for GB in 2003.
Barnett and Diggs were 1 and 2 in 2004, followed by Roman, Sharper Kampman and Navies.
Diggs was dinged up a number of years, but always played. That was his big complaint in 2005, that they didn't give him a chance to play. As he said, he always played in the past, even when nicked up. Lenon played some but not a lot until 2005. Navies and Diggs started and finished the games, for the most part.

"Arguably the best cover linebacker"? Based on what? Certainly not interceptions or passes defensed.

DTs are the most responsible for keeping the middle linbacker clean, and Jackson and Picket were very good at it. I'm not suggesting the Packer line has been great, but it hasn't been awful either.

Making things up, I don't think so. Have you actually looked at the time they spent on the field? Or are you just parroting numbers from nfl.com? Did you watch the games? I am starting to think you didn't. Let me use the same argument that so many of you use against Barnett, stats don't mean anything. In fact, you can argue that Diggs, Navies and Lenon sucked based on the very same logic used to bash Barnett. You can even argue that they all left games injured and didn't return for a game or two.

Face it, Barnett has not had the same players around him for more than one season (2006) his entire career. For you to argue otherwise is ridiculous.

Someday fans will realize that just because someone doesn't lead the world in passes defended or ints that it makes them a nobody (Al Harris anyone?) or a player who can't do the job. When teams don't throw to the player you are covering it makes it kind of hard to get the stats. You of all people can't be that naive. I also wasn't aware that we had Jackson and Picket plugging up the middle at the same time. When only one defensive lineman is plugging the middle, there are 3 more players on the line. The Bears? They only have one good DT right? And Urlacher? He has more passes defended than anyone else in the history of the game? More sacks? More Ints? More Tackles? So much for your stats and theories...

[Merlin]

It would be intriguing to add Paul Posluzny to the mix.

I am not "sold" on him because he isn't very big @ 6'1 238#. Popinga is our biggest LB @ 6'3 245# and Brady doesn't look that big on the field. Even though he has the same size as Barnett, Hodge and Hawk, he doesn't look that big on the field. The things I do like about him thought is that he has good leadership qualities and a big heart. Those players usually do very well in the NFL regardless of size. The only other question is, who does he replace?

[Zool]

I've watched LB's and specifically Barnett play the last couple seasons. If a RB releases to the TE side against the Packers, he will be open. While Barnett has the speed to close and make the tackle, its always a few yards down field. I guess you could argue that anyone in the NFL is the best cover LB, I wouldnt argue in favor of Barnett.

[Patler]

Merlin;

I have watched or listened to almost all the Packer games live or taped since the mid-1960s.

You seem to be suggesting that I am a Barnett basher. If you have read my posts about Barnett over the past couple years, I have been a strong supporter of his importance to the team. However, that does not mean that I will automatically agree with what I think are statements that are flat out wrong, as I believe several of yours are.

Heck, I went through and detailed the location of every Barnett tackle through the first 3/4 of the 2005 season, did the same for Urlacher, (relative to the distance from the line of scrimmage) just to refute the arguments that most of his tackles were 5-10 yards down field, as some have argued.

I like Barnett a lot, espcially compared to what GB has had at times in the past. BUT, to call him arguably the best cover linebacker in the NFL I think is going overboard.

[Merlin]

I never said you weren't a Barnett fan Patler. The point was that statistics seldom if ever show how good or bad a player is. If Manning can win the Super Bowl MVP with his horrible performance against the Bears and his stats were used, that probably would have made the point better.

As far as being "wrong", I am not "wrong" just like you aren't "wrong". It's a matter of opinion. I watch the games and I know what I see. You use the stats to back yourself up. Nothing wrong with either analysis. To say I am "making things up" and that I "am wrong" because it doesn't jive with your numbers isn't right either.

Many games linebackers left because of injury not to return that game. They may have been back the next week and in the stats, you see them listed as starting two games. To me, that is a false stat for comparison to see who Barnett has lined up with consistently over his career. 2006 was the first season that he had the same LB's and defense as a whole around him his entire career.

I also think you are missing the keyword "arguably". That is based on my opinion. I didn't say he was the best. You are entitled to your opinion as am I.

[Patler]

I also think you are missing the keyword "arguably". That is based on my opinion. I didn't say he was the best. You are entitled to your opinion as am I.

Of course, but I am also entitled to believe that your opinion and/or statements are "wrong"! :D

[Partial]

I am steering clear of Merlin on this, but I do think Barnett is in the top 24 of the 32 MLB. When you break his game down, I would say his skills that seperate him from being a back-up are his acceleration and speed, and his coverage abilities.

I'd probably rate him right around 12 or so, because there are several players i'd rather have over him.

What makes Urlacher a superstar rather than a back-up is his speed(probably not quite as fast as Barnett anymore, but he was equally fast in his prime), his instincts for picking the right hole (a massive step above barnett, he has HOF instincts), his coverage ability (he is better in coverage than Barnett, especially in a zone), his size(6'4", 265), etc.

Urlacher is the type of rare athlete that seems to have it all ala Vernon Davis or Mario Williams in terms of sheer talent. He was very fortunate to have a good work ethic and head on his shoulders to propell him to elite status.

Barnett will forever be known as a good packer and a solid starter. Urlacher will have his bust bronzed in Canton.

I also 100% agree with Bulldog that plugging Hawk into the middle, and moving Barnett to the weak-side would maximize both their strengths and minimize both their weaknesses.

[Merlin]

Urlacher is only in the spotlight because he plays for a team that sucked for a lot of years without any super stars. That's it. Also take into consideration that the Bears are known to have good MLB's historically. The media isn't going to slam the only guy on the team doing all the work. Hawk and Barnett both belong on the outside. Neither of them are suited "well" to play in the middle and neither is Urlacher. That being said, Barnett has the MLB experience in the NFL. Why would we want to go through more years of Hawk's learning curve when we have someone who is more then adequate at the position? The comparisons between Barnett and Hawk are numerous. I ran through those last year when everyone was bashing Barnett and loving Hawk. What I find disturbing are the fans who still see things that way. Numbers-wise Barnett = Urlacher. Performance-wise Barnett = Urlacher. He hits the whole just like Urlacher, the difference is a monster front four and up until the last few games last year, our 1 or 2 monsters up front. Urlacher is in the whole making the tackle while Barnett is busy fighting off the guard to make the tackle. When Urlacher has to fight off a guard, guess what, he is in the same league as Barnett. Urlacher is in his prime, he isn't "old" by any standard.

[Patler]

I am not nearly as impressed with Urlacher as you are, Partial.
Don't get me wrong, I agree he is very good, but I think the Bear image, folklore, history, whatever, has embellished his performance.

Bear middle linebackers are mean, tough and the best in the league.
Dallas is America's team.
Packers play better as a team, but are not among the best individuals in the league.

Etc. etc. etc.
.

[Partial]

Urlacher != Barnett. Not even close.

Urlacher is without question the best MLB in the league. Who is better?

Patler, you don't think Urlacher is going to Canton?

[Patler]

Urlacher is only in the spotlight because he plays for a team that sucked for a lot of years without any super stars. That's it. Also take into consideration that the Bears are known to have good MLB's historically. The media isn't going to slam the only guy on the team doing all the work.

See Merlin, we can agree on some things! :wink: :wink:

[Merlin]

I agree with Patler 100%. Urlacher has benefited over his career from things that have nothing to do with how he plays. He will be in the HOF but it won't be because he is the best. Go and look at his stats, then look at Barnett's. I did this in the past, there isn't much of a difference between the two other then Urlacher plays for the Bears and Barnett plays for the Packers. The camera's in a game are always on Urlacher, if gave as much attention to Barnett, you would see the same shifty eyes, the fire and all that crap that get's over hyped. The spotlight was on AJ last year and he did a great job. But, diminishing what Barnett has given this team in 4 seasons and railroading the guy because of a bad play here and there is just wrong. I don't see anyone looking at the bad plays that Hawk made and saying he has to go or he has to move. Same for Urlacher. There were more plays where Hawk got blown up than Barnett and as many for Urlacher.

[Merlin]

Urlacher is only in the spotlight because he plays for a team that sucked for a lot of years without any super stars. That's it. Also take into consideration that the Bears are known to have good MLB's historically. The media isn't going to slam the only guy on the team doing all the work.

See Merlin, we can agree on some things! :wink: :wink:

We agree more times then not. I am so sick of people hating on the guy. I thought he was one of Sherman's better picks (not like there were a ton of them). He stepped in, did the job and continued to improve. WOW, what else can we expect?

[Partial]

Now let me get this straight:

For Barnett we can ignore the stats and see what he does on the field and the accolade the people "in the know" give him to judge him as a player.

But for Urlacher, we have to compare the stats?

Barnett is a nice player and a solid starter. Every team in the league would find a way to use him, and most would gladly take on the big salary he is about to get.

Urlacher is a supreme player and every team in the league would pay him and move their MLB to a different position. The man is a beast.

I don't think its so much his massive DTs as it is he is just a whole lot bigger, stronger and longer than Barnett.

[Patler]

Urlacher != Barnett. Not even close.

Urlacher is without question the best MLB in the league. Who is better?

Patler, you don't think Urlacher is going to Canton?

I long ago gave up predicting what the HOF voters in any sport will do. Deserving players on bad teams are left out. Popular players get in.

Do I think Urlacher is a HOFer performance wise? No, I do not.
Will he be voted in? It might depend on who retires the year he does and the 5 or so years after he does.

In no way shape or form do I think Michael Irvin was a HOF performer. For the seven years they played together, Sterling Sharp was head and shoulders above Michael Irvin in every way that you can evaluate a receiver. Irvin was good, not great. But, he had a relatively long career on a very successful team, and he was and continues to be famous (perhaps "infamous" is better). Some how that has added up to a better career in the voters' minds than his performance actually dictated, in my opinion.

[Merlin]

I didn't say ignore the stats. I am saying that for comparison between the two. You can't take the media hype and the Bears history and automatically apply it to a player and say he is the best. Only you would take the context of one thing and apply it to another....good grief. I can compare stats, plays, anything else you want to compare between the two and when it's all said and done, they are equal. With one difference, the line in front of them. Urlacher gets blown up as much as any other linebacker in the league and you aren't clamoring for the Bears to move him, replace him, cut him or trade him. Why? You have a bias and that's fine.

I think Urlacher is a great MLB, but I also think Barnett is to. You apply one set of logic to Barnett but another to Urlacher. Only when you use the same logic to compare the two can you make an unbiased decision and you won't do that because it would show that Urlacher = Barnett.

[Merlin]

Urlacher != Barnett. Not even close.

Urlacher is without question the best MLB in the league. Who is better?

Patler, you don't think Urlacher is going to Canton?

I long ago gave up predicting what the HOF voters in any sport will do. Deserving players on bad teams are left out. Popular players get in.

Do I think Urlacher is a HOFer performance wise? No, I do not.
Will he be voted in? It might depend on who retires the year he does and the 5 or so years after he does.

In no way shape or form do I think Michael Irvin was a HOF performer. For the seven years they played together, Sterling Sharp was head and shoulders above Michael Irvin in every way that you can evaluate a receiver. Irvin was good, not great. But, he had a relatively long career on a very successful team, and he was and continues to be famous (perhaps "infamous" is better). Some how that has added up to a better career in the voters' minds than his performance actually dictated, in my opinion.

The HOF is getting as bad as the Pro Bowl. A QB with 3 NFL starts could make the Pro Bowl in the popularity contest. Donald Driver made it because he deserved it, same with Kampman. The leading vote getters get the start, not the best players.

[Packnut]

Frankly, I'm stunned that ANYONE would believe Barnett is in the same class with Urlacher. May-be pass coverage does'nt mean anything to some but it does to me. Urlacher is head and shouldes better than Barnett in that area. He gets very deep drops and rarely do you see a TE beat him. The same can't be said for Nick.

2nd- How many times does Barnett meet the RB in the hole? Barnett plays on his side of the ball 100% of the time. Ya wanna look at stats? How many negative yd plays does Barnett have?

3rd- bone jarring hits. I've seen Urlacher just smoke a few backs. Don't ever recall Nick laying the smack down.

Now you can make a good case that Urlacher's play improved with the talent on the Bears D-line. Still, anyone who saw the Bears play Seattle would have seen Urlacher on at least 3 short yardage plays take on Alexander in the hole and stop him for little or no gain. Had Seattle been able to run on 3rd and short, they would have won that game.

I agree that here in Chicago, Urlacher is over-hyped, but to imply that he is'nt one of the top 5 MLB's in the game is just flat out wrong.

[Partial]

Packnut has it right. Urlacher also has a knack for the big play, be it laying an excellent block on special teams allowing Hester to house it, picking off a critical pass, or laying the wood and forcing a critical fumble like he did against Arizona.

[Green Bud Packer]

I'd trade Barnett for Girlacher even up anyday. Hawk will be better than Barnett. That said I still think they should sign him long term. I think the Pack can win with Barnett in the middle.

[RashanGary]

I think Urlacher is really good but I agree with those above who think he's overrated. IMO he's a fringe probowl player who it hyped as the best LB in the game.

[Partial]

to those who are saying he is good but overrated, then who is better?

I can think of one person who has a better combination of instincts and speed, but they are about 4 inches shorter and 30 pounds lighter. And if this year was any indication of future play, I'll retract that statement in a heart-beat.

[Bretsky]

to those who are saying he is good but overrated, then who is better?

I can think of one person who has a better combination of instincts and speed, but they are about 4 inches shorter and 30 pounds lighter. And if this year was any indication of future play, I'll retract that statement in a heart-beat.


I'm not sure there is a better MLB in the NFL right now. I don't consider him to be one of the greatest......but hard to locate one that is now better

[Zool]

Who's that kid on the Jets?

I'll have to go look it up.

Edit: Vilma always seems to be making big plays, but he's in a 3-4 so that skews it a bit.

[Partial]

Who's that kid on the Jets?

I'll have to go look it up.

Edit: Vilma always seems to be making big plays, but he's in a 3-4 so that skews it a bit.

Vilma was who I was referencing. Flat out stud.

[Zool]

Who's that kid on the Jets?

I'll have to go look it up.

Edit: Vilma always seems to be making big plays, but he's in a 3-4 so that skews it a bit.

Vilma was who I was referencing. Flat out stud.Agreed. Wonder what he would do in a 4-3. With a couple really good D-tackles, he wouldn't have to see a O-guard ever.

[Partial]

He was great in a 4-3 before this year. Very good linebacker.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I agree with partial and packnut, he is the best in the league at MLB. No one is better than him.

[prsnfoto]

5) Is arguably the best cover MLB in the nfl.

Thats funny the only guy worse than him on the team for giving up plays over twenty yards was Manuel "arguably" the best safety in football. Come on guys he is an average MLB you all want to use excuses for other guys stats well here is one for Barnett, he played behind arguably the worst run defending DE in football this inflates his tackles, I would guess both Hawk's and his numbers will go down with Jenkins next year, what are they going to do run at Kampman? I have never once in his career seen him meet a back in the hole and crush him Hawk did it several times last year, I would try to resign him but not for big bucks 5 years 30 million 8 guarenteed.

[Partial]

Barnett is good in coverage but not great. If he was great he wouldn't ever get thrown on or they'd drop him into a zone and let him roam.

He has the speed and athleticism to make up for his mistakes in coverage. That's why I say he is good.

And by good, I really mean solid. He's not a liability in coverage.

[Tarlam!]

http://www.packers.com/news/releases/2007/04/10/1/

The Green Bay Packers Tuesday signed linebacker Nick Barnett to a long-term contract extension. Executive Vice President, General Manager and Director of Football Operations Ted Thompson made the announcement.

Barnett has led Green Bay in tackles three of his four seasons, posting 631 career stops. He has also recorded eight sacks, seven interceptions, six fumble recoveries and 29 passes defensed.

[GBRulz]

BARNETT AGREES TO TERMS ON EXTENSION

The Green Bay Packers have agreed to terms with Nick Barnett on a long-term extension. The 25-year-old middle linebacker still had one year left on his rookie deal, but the two sides have been working on a new contract for months. Barnett has started 62 of 64 games since being drafted in the first round out of Oregon State in 2003. While no terms have been released, the extension is expected to be worth at least $5.5 million a year and include over $11 million in guaranteed money.

[GBRulz]

I'm SOOOOOOO glad to see that TT got this done! One less thing to worry about going into the season.

Kudos to Barnett on how he handled the situation as well. I think this sets a great example on how to be rewarded with a nice paycheck.

[Brando19]

The Green Bay Packers announced Tuesday, April 10, that they have signed LB Nick Barnett to a long-term contract extension. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!

[wist43]

Hopefully he'll play like he did last year... no impact either way, really.

It's amazing how much even average players are getting these days.

[MJZiggy]

I like it. GBR, I totally agree with you. It seems the players that are handling this stuff with a bit more class are really getting taken care of. Thanks for posting that Tarlam.

[Merlin]

Pretty large deal for someone who is supposedly a liability in coverage and plays 100% of the time on his side of the ball. Man, what was TT thinking...

AJ Hawk will always be a good LB in the eyes of the media and most fans because he had a good rookie year so now the media won't dare point out any faults about him (ala Urlacher). I am not saying he won't be a great linebacker but he too will be over-hyped. Barnett had a great rookie season but for whatever reason the fans see a few blown plays and "poof" he sucks. The media doesn't say a word about him either.

Hrmmm, the media telling fans who is good and who isn't? Nawwwwww, that would never happen in America....

[wist43]

There's no comparison between Barnett and Hawk...

Hawk show's all the signs of being a quality, high end LB - Barnett is fast and durable, but he also has a lot of warts.

Hawk is a much a better player than Barnett.

[Merlin]

We hashed this out last year.

All things being equal, Hawk will always be better than Barnett to a lot of people and the reasons have nothing to do with how they play.

[wist43]

We hashed this out last year.

All things being equal, Hawk will always be better than Barnett to a lot of people and the reasons have nothing to do with how they play.

I'm not a "Hawk lover"... I think he's a good player, which is why I gave up opposition to his being drafted at #5. All along, I never considered Hawk to be a top 5 pick, but also figured he'd be a decent player, and wouldn't be a bust.

That said, he's a pure football player... whereas I see Barnett as an athlete trying to play football.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

5 mil a year is not a lot, if we were to sign any MLB in free agnecy of equal talent to Barnett we would had to pay just as much if not more. I think Barnett a good player and am very glad we signed him.

[woodbuck27]

BARNETT AGREES TO TERMS ON EXTENSION

The Green Bay Packers have agreed to terms with Nick Barnett on a long-term extension. The 25-year-old middle linebacker still had one year left on his rookie deal, but the two sides have been working on a new contract for months. Barnett has started 62 of 64 games since being drafted in the first round out of Oregon State in 2003. While no terms have been released, the extension is expected to be worth at least $5.5 million a year and include over $11 million in guaranteed money.

Good ! Now that is out of the way.

I'm glad that TT got this done so we'er not praying for Nick Barnett's replacement, yet the official stance is that Ted is happy with what we already have. :)

[LL2]

BARNETT AGREES TO TERMS ON EXTENSION

The Green Bay Packers have agreed to terms with Nick Barnett on a long-term extension. The 25-year-old middle linebacker still had one year left on his rookie deal, but the two sides have been working on a new contract for months. Barnett has started 62 of 64 games since being drafted in the first round out of Oregon State in 2003. While no terms have been released, the extension is expected to be worth at least $5.5 million a year and include over $11 million in guaranteed money.

It's about time TT made some news. This is a great move as Barnett would've got a HUGE deal next year. He might've left some money on the table. It's great for the Pack and 5.5 is not a ton of moola.

[Partial]

Barnett really got hosed, but I bet a good chunk is guaranteed. Personally, Adalius Thomas really screwed over a lot of linebackers looking to bank in because he took such a low salary w/ high guarantees and to play on a good team on the east coast as opposed to going for about 9 mil per year somewhere.

I am actually quite surprised. Good thing Chicago is cheap with Briggs too. That also helped us lock him up cheaper.

Next up is Corey Williams. Get him locked up for 4 years as well!

[HarveyWallbangers]

Neither Barnett nor Hawk are in Urlacher's class. Neither very likely never will be. That being said, I think Hawk can rise to a Pro Bowl level--on par with a Lance Briggs or the Denver LBs. If they had a third LB as good as Hawk and Barnett, they could challenge for the best LB corps in the league.

Vilma didn't fit the Jets new scheme, and he was exposed a little bit. Rumors are that the Jets are looking to trade him.

[Partial]

Neither Barnett nor Hawk are in Urlacher's class. Neither very likely never will be. That being said, I think Hawk can rise to a Pro Bowl level--on par with a Lance Briggs or the Denver LBs. If they had a third LB as good as Hawk and Barnett, they could challenge for the best LB corps in the league.

Vilma didn't fit the Jets new scheme, and he was exposed a little bit. Rumors are that the Jets are looking to trade him.

Barnett for Vilma straight up if they'll take it (which there is no way they would). He's younger, faster, and nastier.

[oregonpackfan]

I'm SOOOOOOO glad to see that TT got this done! One less thing to worry about going into the season.

Kudos to Barnett on how he handled the situation as well. I think this sets a great example on how to be rewarded with a nice paycheck.

Very well put, GBRulz! I agree with you on both points.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Barnett for Vilma straight up if they'll take it (which there is no way they would). He's younger, faster, and nastier.

I don't think they are all that dissimilar.

Vilma is 6'1" 230. He's averaged 129 tackles, 1 sack, 1.7 interceptions, 2.7 fumbles, and 3.7 pass deflections per year. He's played in two different schemes in his 3 years.

Barnett is 6'2" 232. He's averaged 120 tackles, 2 sacks, 1.8 interceptions, 1.8 fumbles, and 4 pass deflections per year. He's played in three different schemes in his 4 years. Considering Barnett has missed 2 games in his 4 years and Vilma hasn't missed any (they are both durable), their stats (e.g. tackles) are nearly identical.

[b bulldog]

Stats can be misleading. Vilma is thought to be one of the best young LB's in the game. I'd take him over 56.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Stats can be misleading. Vilma is thought to be one of the best young LB's in the game. I'd take him over 56.

As I've stated before, he had a down year. You hear the name and the reputation, and think he's mint. He wasn't this year. I imagine many outside of Green Bay hear Barnett's name and think more highly of people really close to the team. I don't think there's a huge difference between them--although I'd take Vilma if I had to choose. I just think he's probably overrated at this point compared to how he played last year.

From ESPN's Insider (scouting reports sound similar: fast, good motor, good coverage skills, small and need to be protected, overagressive):

Jonathan Vilma
6-1 230
2004 Round 1
Grade: 79

Comment:
Vilma is an athletic, instinctive playmaker. He has an excellent motor and always seems to be around the ball. He is a fast-flow linebacker who has great range and is an explosive hitter. He can slide laterally, avoid and get over trash with good speed to the perimeter. He has some functional strength. He has active hands and can get over the top and free himself from blocks. He gets good depth on his drops and plays with good awareness in zone coverage. He has good closing speed on underneath throws. He has good balance, body control and change-of-direction skills in space. He can match up in underneath man-to-man situations. He has a knack for anticipating and timing up zone blitzes. But Vilma is undersized (especially in the 3-4) and needs to be protected inside the box. He gets driven out of run lanes when he squares up to take on blockers. He can be engulfed by big guards. He can be overaggressive. He takes some poor downhill angles and overruns his gap responsibility.

Nick Barnett
6-2 232
2003 Round 1
Grade: 74

Comment:
Barnett has very good speed, athleticism and explosiveness. He has elite change-of-direction and lateral-movement skills. He can run and cover ground quickly sideline to sideline. He has an excellent motor, gets great jumps on the ball and chases down many plays away from him. He has excellent recognition skills and can slip blocks and make plays. He seems to have a great feel for where the play is headed. He uses his hands very well and protects his body to get around blocks. He is a strong tackler within the box and out in space. He makes most of his big plays laterally or at an angle. But Barnett has only decent size and isn't an effective take-on player. He can be engulfed by linemen when he gets into short-area fistfights. He tends to struggle when he isn't on the move. He overruns some plays to avoid contact and get better angles, occasionally opening a hole in the defense.

[b bulldog]

When I watch the two play, Vilma sticks out and makes plays. Nick doesn't seem to do so.

[HarveyWallbangers]

When I watch the two play, Vilma sticks out and makes plays. Nick doesn't seem to do so.

Maybe you watched his good games. Statistics show these two are virtually identical in every "big play" category. Could Vilma be making all of his tackles at the line of scrimmage or something like that? Possibly, but doubtful since the Jets were pathetic against the run the last two years. Way worse than Green Bay in rushing yards/game and yards/rush in each of the last two seasons.

[Rastak]

When I watch the two play, Vilma sticks out and makes plays. Nick doesn't seem to do so.

Maybe you watched his good games. Statistics show these two are virtually identical in every "big play" category. Could Vilma be making all of his tackles at the line of scrimmage or something like that? Possibly, but doubtful since the Jets were pathetic against the run the last two years. Way worse than Green Bay in rushing yards/game and yards/rush in each of the last two seasons.


When his anti-Viking bias isn't in full force, you should bever doubt Harvey's analysis!


:wink:

[HarveyWallbangers]

Like I said, I'd take Vilma. However, I've read scouting reports this offseason that the Jets weren't thrilled with Vilma's play, and a lot of people think he doesn't fit their new scheme. Like any player, a lot of how he does is predicated on the scheme and the guys around him. I don't think either guy is a Shawne Merriman game changer.

[packerbacker1234]

It's time I finally shut you the hell up for thinking barnett is a subpar to mediocre MLB at best. It's all in the numbers.

Urlacher
2006 - 93:UT 49:Assisted 0:sacks 0:int 0:forced fumble 1:fumble recovery

Barnett
2006 - 88:UT 53:Assisted 2:sacks 2:int (can't find forced fumble and fumble recovery stats)

Ok, so combined, barnett had ONE LESS tackle then Urlacher. Urlacher had one fumble recovery, where as BARNETT HAD 2 INTS and 2 SACKS.

DIfference between the two? Urlacher went to the probowl, barnett didn't. I could go through stats like this for EVERY YEAR barnett and urlacher have been in the league together.

SO either A: Urlacher is Overrated and sucks balls since apperently barnett sucks or B: Your totally being biased to the guy just because he doesn't have a probowl.

And whats funny is, with Hawk on the team, barnetts stats are even LESS then they use to be. Meaning, if you look at the numbers, barnett had better numbers then urlacher almost every year.

Event his year, technically speaking, barnett has a better probowl resume then urlacher.

So whats my point? STFU about barnet not deserving his pay day and being mediocre at best. Not too many one armed linebackers would of done what barnett did last year. It's in the numbers and I bring to you all plain old fashion facts. Argue all you want, you can't argue with results. Thats what barnett has been bringing this defense for years.


*To note, barnett missed one game too, yet still has better probowl stats then urlacher. Ironic. Urlacher has name recognition, barnett does not. Stop hating.



So Barnett had a down year? Then i guess Urlacher had a horrid year. Wait urlacher was probowl no? Thats what I thought. Anyone, and i mean ANYONE, who is stupid enough to not think barnett is a topt tier elite mlb needs to be shot. He has stats that are compariable and often times BETTER then one of the BEST MLB IN THE GAME. It's all in the numbers my friends.

[RashanGary]

Urlacher is overrated but he doesn't "suck balls" he is an overrtaed big city player who makes the probowl deservedly but is not the greatest LB in teh game like the media make him out to be.

VERY good player IMO. Not a great one.

I think Merriman is a GREAT player, a true dominate defender of this time.

[the_idle_threat]

It's time I finally shut you the hell up for thinking barnett is a subpar to mediocre MLB at best. It's all in the numbers.

Urlacher
2006 - 93:UT 49:Assisted 0:sacks 0:int 0:forced fumble 1:fumble recovery

Barnett
2006 - 88:UT 53:Assisted 2:sacks 2:int (can't find forced fumble and fumble recovery stats)

Ok, so combined, barnett had ONE LESS tackle then Urlacher. Urlacher had one fumble recovery, where as BARNETT HAD 2 INTS and 2 SACKS.

DIfference between the two? Urlacher went to the probowl, barnett didn't. I could go through stats like this for EVERY YEAR barnett and urlacher have been in the league together.

SO either A: Urlacher is Overrated and sucks balls since apperently barnett sucks or B: Your totally being biased to the guy just because he doesn't have a probowl.

And whats funny is, with Hawk on the team, barnetts stats are even LESS then they use to be. Meaning, if you look at the numbers, barnett had better numbers then urlacher almost every year.

Event his year, technically speaking, barnett has a better probowl resume then urlacher.

So whats my point? STFU about barnet not deserving his pay day and being mediocre at best. Not too many one armed linebackers would of done what barnett did last year. It's in the numbers and I bring to you all plain old fashion facts. Argue all you want, you can't argue with results. Thats what barnett has been bringing this defense for years.


*To note, barnett missed one game too, yet still has better probowl stats then urlacher. Ironic. Urlacher has name recognition, barnett does not. Stop hating.



So Barnett had a down year? Then i guess Urlacher had a horrid year. Wait urlacher was probowl no? Thats what I thought. Anyone, and i mean ANYONE, who is stupid enough to not think barnett is a topt tier elite mlb needs to be shot. He has stats that are compariable and often times BETTER then one of the BEST MLB IN THE GAME. It's all in the numbers my friends.

You get an "A" in the passion category, but at whom are you directing this diatribe? :?:

Also, the numbers don't "lie," but they also don't measure leadership. Barnett's version of leadership is doing that "look at me" ballerina dance after a TFL. Bleccch!

That being said, I do think he's a very good linebacker (even if not All-Pro) and he's a pretty good team guy, so I'm glad they paid him.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Who cares if he does a dance? Look around the NFL and you'll see a large percentage do. It's been that way for about 20 years now. It bothered me at first when players started doing it, but I've gotten over it. If it fires up the team, then so be it. It's not like it's taking a lot of energy away from him. I actually have come to enjoy some of the dances--like Steve Smith's love boat and most of Chad Johnson's stuff. The stuff I don't like is that unsportsmanlike stuff (e.g. Terrell Owens stomping on the Dallas star or sticking the ball out at an opposing player as your prancing across the endzone).

[Zool]

I dont have a problem with the celebrations, so much as Barnett's celebration is lllllaaaaaaaaaaame

[Rastak]

Who cares if he does a dance? Look around the NFL and you'll see a large percentage do. It's been that way for about 20 years now. It bothered me at first when players started doing it, but I've gotten over it. If it fires up the team, then so be it. It's not like it's taking a lot of energy away from him. I actually have come to enjoy some of the dances--like Steve Smith's love boat and most of Chad Johnson's stuff. The stuff I don't like is that unsportsmanlike stuff (e.g. Terrell Owens stomping on the Dallas star or sticking the ball out at an opposing player as your prancing across the endzone).


I absolutely hate that stuff. Not just Green Bay but all 32 teams.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

Who cares if he does a dance? Look around the NFL and you'll see a large percentage do. It's been that way for about 20 years now. It bothered me at first when players started doing it, but I've gotten over it. If it fires up the team, then so be it. It's not like it's taking a lot of energy away from him. I actually have come to enjoy some of the dances--like Steve Smith's love boat and most of Chad Johnson's stuff. The stuff I don't like is that unsportsmanlike stuff (e.g. Terrell Owens stomping on the Dallas star or sticking the ball out at an opposing player as your prancing across the endzone).


I absolutely hate that stuff. Not just Green Bay but all 32 teams.

Might as well get used to it, the NFL is getting younger, not older.

[packerbacker1234]

It's time I finally shut you the hell up for thinking barnett is a subpar to mediocre MLB at best. It's all in the numbers.

Urlacher
2006 - 93:UT 49:Assisted 0:sacks 0:int 0:forced fumble 1:fumble recovery

Barnett
2006 - 88:UT 53:Assisted 2:sacks 2:int (can't find forced fumble and fumble recovery stats)

Ok, so combined, barnett had ONE LESS tackle then Urlacher. Urlacher had one fumble recovery, where as BARNETT HAD 2 INTS and 2 SACKS.

DIfference between the two? Urlacher went to the probowl, barnett didn't. I could go through stats like this for EVERY YEAR barnett and urlacher have been in the league together.

SO either A: Urlacher is Overrated and sucks balls since apperently barnett sucks or B: Your totally being biased to the guy just because he doesn't have a probowl.

And whats funny is, with Hawk on the team, barnetts stats are even LESS then they use to be. Meaning, if you look at the numbers, barnett had better numbers then urlacher almost every year.

Event his year, technically speaking, barnett has a better probowl resume then urlacher.

So whats my point? STFU about barnet not deserving his pay day and being mediocre at best. Not too many one armed linebackers would of done what barnett did last year. It's in the numbers and I bring to you all plain old fashion facts. Argue all you want, you can't argue with results. Thats what barnett has been bringing this defense for years.


*To note, barnett missed one game too, yet still has better probowl stats then urlacher. Ironic. Urlacher has name recognition, barnett does not. Stop hating.



So Barnett had a down year? Then i guess Urlacher had a horrid year. Wait urlacher was probowl no? Thats what I thought. Anyone, and i mean ANYONE, who is stupid enough to not think barnett is a topt tier elite mlb needs to be shot. He has stats that are compariable and often times BETTER then one of the BEST MLB IN THE GAME. It's all in the numbers my friends.

You get an "A" in the passion category, but at whom are you directing this diatribe? :?:

Also, the numbers don't "lie," but they also don't measure leadership. Barnett's version of leadership is doing that "look at me" ballerina dance after a TFL. Bleccch!

That being said, I do think he's a very good linebacker (even if not All-Pro) and he's a pretty good team guy, so I'm glad they paid him.

Oh yeah, his leadership blows. Thats why when hodge was in there the whole defense virtually sucked ballz, then barnett came back and suddenly there good again., He is an excellent leader and him celebrating something good happening pumps the defense up. SO what if they were destroyed earlier in the game, that doesn't mean the passion goes away.

And like someone said, Urlacher goes to the probowl deservingly. I wont argue that, HOWEVER, if you want to go off deserving, I showed the numbers. WHy is barnett not in the probowl? Name recognition. WHent he bears sucked for so long, urlacher was the only good player they had so the media blew him up. Barnett joined an already good packers team so the media didn't blow him up. Hence he hasn't made a probowl

[RashanGary]

This is a 6 year 35 million dollar deal right? That roughly 5.8 million dollars per year.

Let's put this in perspective a little:

Nate Clements - A 27 year old borderline probowl CB just signed for 8 years and 80 MILLION dollars. That is 10 million per year with 26 up front.

EJ Henderson - An average at best LB was recently signed by a rival team for 5 years and 25 million with 10 million gauranteed. Henderson has never made the probowl and I feel pretty comfortable syaing that he never will. WE play him 2 times per year for the last 4 years and he's never made a play to my recollection.


There are 3 markets:

The Unrestricted Market
The Restricted Market AND
The "I Want Mine Early" Market

The goal of a GM is to draft well so you can avoid the overpriced UFA market. This is just another example of how teams who draft well become dominate. We just have to get more than 2 players a year to resign this way (we need to draft better *shermans gone*) and we'll be competive even without Favre.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Henderson was pretty solid this year, but I think it's safe to say that Barnett has had a better career to this point, and I think he has better potential from here on out. I think Barnett's deal was a fair deal for the market, and Henderson's was pretty fair also. I'd probably take Barnett for $5.8M/year over Henderson for $5M/year, but it's pretty close.

[Rastak]

Henderson was pretty solid this year, but I think it's safe to say that Barnett has had a better career to this point, and I think he has better potential from here on out. I think Barnett's deal was a fair deal for the market, and Henderson's was pretty fair also. I'd probably take Barnett for $5.8M/year over Henderson for $5M/year, but it's pretty close.


Completely agree on your points.


edit: Maybe I'm not 100% sure on the potential comment....but Samurai Nick has been better for sure....

[RashanGary]

Harvey,

What do you think of hte UFA market, the RFA market and the "I want mine early market" Do you think that Barnett got the same $$ that he would have on the UFA market? If you believe that then you should want our GM fired because there is absolutely no reason for a team ot give a player an early contract without a discount.

Barnett is a steal in relation to Clements and the OL guys who got 50 mil plus this off season. I agree that it is closer to the Henderson deal as far as fairness but in relation to the market as of late it's very hard to call Barnetts deal "market value" when the market is set so much higher as of late.

[RashanGary]

Eric Steinbech got 50 mil
Leonard Davis got 50 mil


I don't think Barnett's deal was fair market. I think it's very much a discount and overtime as things inflate it will look even better.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Harvey,

What do you think of hte UFA market, the RFA market and the "I want mine early market" Do you think that Barnett got the same $$ that he would have on the UFA market? If you believe that then you should want our GM fired because there is absolutely no reason for a team ot give a player an early contract without a discount.

Barnett is a steal in relation to Clements and the OL guys who got 50 mil plus this off season. I agree that it is closer to the Henderson deal as far as fairness but in relation to the market as of late it's very hard to call Barnetts deal "market value" when the market is set so much higher as of late.

I think it's fair. Henderson got $5M/year on his extension, and he wasn't due to be a UFA until after this year. I guess I don't get too hung up on the numbers. Some of them are very fuzzy. Because of the money available, Green Bay can frontload contracts. Barnett probably got more real money than some others have gotten, but it's also a contract that would allow Green Bay to cut him with minimal salary cap impact--if it didn't work out.

[Bretsky]

Eric Steinbech got 50 mil
Leonard Davis got 50 mil


I don't think Barnett's deal was fair market. I think it's very much a discount and overtime as things inflate it will look even better.


IMO we should be looking at Linebacker deals to compare Barnett with. Thomas, Weatherspoon from last yr.....etc.

I thought the deal was fair. But if Barnett continues to perform it will be a bargain when looking at the salaries next year, which was when Barnett would have been unrestricted.

[Partial]

Eric Steinbech got 50 mil
Leonard Davis got 50 mil


I don't think Barnett's deal was fair market. I think it's very much a discount and overtime as things inflate it will look even better.


IMO we should be looking at Linebacker deals to compare Barnett with. Thomas, Weatherspoon from last yr.....etc.

I thought the deal was fair. But if Barnett continues to perform it will be a bargain when looking at the salaries next year, which was when Barnett would have been unrestricted.

Correct you are. He'll be a big time bargin two years into it.

[RashanGary]

I don't hink it's fair to compare Barnettt to this years LBs' who are over 30 because those guys get dinged for age. Barnett is similar to Witherspoon in age but he is getting his deal a year latter and I think he's a little better yet he's getting the same amount.

I think this is going to look like a huge bargain teh next time a good LB Barnetts age hits teh market.

Jenkins looks like a Bargain
Kamp looks like a huge Bargain
Barnett looks like a huge Bargain

we're keeping all of these players and we're still going to have a shit load of space next year. This is exactly what I was hoping for in the GM change. If we draft a little better you guys will see how loaded a team can get with talent if they have a good GM even without Favre.

[Zool]

You have to look at guaranteed money in these contracts, not the overall $ figure. You really think Nate Clements is going to collect all $80mil?

[woodbuck27]

I didn't read through this entire thread so this may already have been revealed:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=589678

Barnett's contract extended
Linebacker latest in-house player rewarded by team

By TOM SILVERSTEIN
tsilverstein@journalsentinel.com
Posted: April 10, 2007

Green Bay - Nick Barnett might be a little bit biased - he had just become the Green Bay Packers' highest-paid player on defense - but he sees nothing wrong with the philosophy general manager Ted Thompson has adopted for his team.

Building through the draft and using the team's money to lock up those who are already in house sits well with him.

"A lot of times you see a lot of GMs, not that I'm knocking all of them, but you see they go out there and waste a lot of money on players that don't pan out, that they don't even know," Barnett said during an afternoon news conference to announce his signing.

"You go out there and you don't even know this player and you spend all that money on them and they come in and they don't add up.

"They (the Packers) have been focused on us, the players that are in the locker room, the people with big hearts and good personalities and (who) work hard."

Barnett became a beneficiary of that ideology Tuesday when he put his name on a six-year contract extension worth $35 million, including around $12 million to be paid this year.

The Packers and Barnett have been negotiating off and on since the season ended in an attempt to reach a long-term agreement and the tide turned last week when the numbers started reaching Barnett's expectations.

The Packers have signed only one free agent this off-season - backup cornerback Frank Walker - but they have locked up Barnett, cornerback Al Harris and defensive end Cullen Jenkins to long-term deals in just the last 3½ months.

In all, they have spent roughly $35 million in bonus money to secure Barnett, Jenkins, Harris, center Scott Wells and defensive end Aaron Kampman to long-term deals over the past year.

In contrast, they have spent only $15 million in bonus money over the same period on free agents Charles Woodson, Ryan Pickett, Marquand Manuel and Walker.

"I think that's normal," Thompson said of investing mostly in his own.

"A lot of teams try to do that. From a timing standpoint, this was just a good time. It was good for the player and good for the club."

The Packers identified Barnett, 26, as one of their core players and set out to complete a deal a year before the four-year veteran was scheduled to become an unrestricted free agent. Though Barnett has not made it to the Pro Bowl, he has led the team in tackles three times and assumed the role of one of the leaders.

"We think he's special," Thompson said. "He's very valuable to our defense. You have to have a guy to play that position now."

Barnett's $5.8 million average puts him in company with such veterans as:

Denver's Al Wilson ($6 million average),

Atlanta's Keith Brooking ($5.7 million),

Miami's Zach Thomas ($5.78 million)

and Carolina's Dan Morgan ($5.6 million).

His bonus money is better than any of the rest and falls just short of the elite group, which includes:

New England's Adalius Thomas ($20 million in bonuses),

Baltimore's Ray Lewis ($19 million)

and Chicago's Brian Urlacher ($14 million).

Had Barnett collected his '07 salary of $1.95 million and gone to free agency next year, there's no telling what he would have received given what Thomas and Miami's Joey Porter ($13 million in bonuses) received as free agents this year.

But Barnett didn't want to risk getting hurt and wanted to continue playing in Green Bay.

"There are numbers and then there's real numbers," agent Chuck Price said, alluding to the inflated free-agent salaries this off-season. "When you looked at what the real numbers were going to be and what they could be, there was absolutely no real decision do we wait or not.

"Once the numbers got to the point where, 'This is Green Bay, I can be set for life,' it was pretty clear that this was the place to finish up."

Barnett, whose deal runs through 2012, said he had embraced a leadership role and never thought about holding out or skipping off-season workouts to show the Packers he was serious about wanting a new contract.

He said the troubles he had with his local nightclub, FiveSix Ultra Lounge, did not dissuade him from making the league's smallest city his home for the next six years.

His hope is that the defense stays together for years to come and that he's its leader.

"I definitely feel like this is my defense," he said.

Because much of Barnett's 2007 money won't be delivered in a signing bonus, the Packers were able to eat up a considerable amount of their $21 million salary-cap surplus. They are now thought to be about $14 million below the cap.

And as a result of sewing up so many starters, they face an off-season in 2008 where defensive tackle Corey Williams is the only player of any significance who will be an unrestricted free agent.

The others are players who aren't even guaranteed of making the team this year.

[pittstang5]

Still $14 mil below the cap.

Plenty of money to still sign Williams, sign the rookie class and make a trade for a big name (Turner or Moss) - IF Thompson wants to.

[LL2]

Jenkins looks like a Bargain
Kamp looks like a huge Bargain
Barnett looks like a huge Bargain

This is TT's style folks, and people will think of him as the next Ron Wolf.

[esoxx]

Unless they don't win a SB. Then the comparison will not be made.

[retailguy]

Jenkins looks like a Bargain
Kamp looks like a huge Bargain
Barnett looks like a huge Bargain

This is TT's style folks, and people will think of him as the next Ron Wolf.


Unless they don't win a SB. Then the comparison will not be made.


Then they'll compare him to Mike Sherman. And if you're me, you believe that THIS is the most likely outcome.... :twisted:

[Bretsky]

Unless they don't win a SB. Then the comparison will not be made.


he doesn't deserve the comparison until he does.

[the_idle_threat]

Who cares if he does a dance? Look around the NFL and you'll see a large percentage do. It's been that way for about 20 years now. It bothered me at first when players started doing it, but I've gotten over it. If it fires up the team, then so be it. It's not like it's taking a lot of energy away from him. I actually have come to enjoy some of the dances--like Steve Smith's love boat and most of Chad Johnson's stuff. The stuff I don't like is that unsportsmanlike stuff (e.g. Terrell Owens stomping on the Dallas star or sticking the ball out at an opposing player as your prancing across the endzone).

???

What is a "large percentage?" Aside from a handful of receivers and our own ballerina Barnett, who else does a cheesy pre-planned dance after practically every big play he makes? At any given time, there are a few guys in the league who do it, and a vast majority who don't.

And I agree with Zool ... part of my problem is that the dance is incredibly lame. I actually liked Big Gil's gravedigger. That seemed to make a statement about---or on behalf of---the defense, as opposed to Barnett running around like a headless chicken while people go :?: and :roll: .

[cpk1994]

Who cares if he does a dance? Look around the NFL and you'll see a large percentage do. It's been that way for about 20 years now. It bothered me at first when players started doing it, but I've gotten over it. If it fires up the team, then so be it. It's not like it's taking a lot of energy away from him. I actually have come to enjoy some of the dances--like Steve Smith's love boat and most of Chad Johnson's stuff. The stuff I don't like is that unsportsmanlike stuff (e.g. Terrell Owens stomping on the Dallas star or sticking the ball out at an opposing player as your prancing across the endzone).

I think the biggest problems people have with Nick's celebrations is that he does them when the Pack are trailing by 35pts. Have you ever seen those others do thier stuff when down big in the 4th?

[Fritz]

Who cares if he does a dance? Look around the NFL and you'll see a large percentage do. It's been that way for about 20 years now. It bothered me at first when players started doing it, but I've gotten over it. If it fires up the team, then so be it. It's not like it's taking a lot of energy away from him. I actually have come to enjoy some of the dances--like Steve Smith's love boat and most of Chad Johnson's stuff. The stuff I don't like is that unsportsmanlike stuff (e.g. Terrell Owens stomping on the Dallas star or sticking the ball out at an opposing player as your prancing across the endzone).

???

What is a "large percentage?" Aside from a handful of receivers and our own ballerina Barnett, who else does a cheesy pre-planned dance after practically every big play he makes? At any given time, there are a few guys in the league who do it, and a vast majority who don't.

And I agree with Zool ... part of my problem is that the dance is incredibly lame. I actually liked Big Gil's gravedigger. That seemed to make a statement about---or on behalf of---the defense, as opposed to Barnett running around like a headless chicken while people go :?: and :roll: .

So if he had better moves you'd like him better? Maybe he needs to take some lessons from Emmitt Smith.

[the_idle_threat]

Who cares if he does a dance? Look around the NFL and you'll see a large percentage do. It's been that way for about 20 years now. It bothered me at first when players started doing it, but I've gotten over it. If it fires up the team, then so be it. It's not like it's taking a lot of energy away from him. I actually have come to enjoy some of the dances--like Steve Smith's love boat and most of Chad Johnson's stuff. The stuff I don't like is that unsportsmanlike stuff (e.g. Terrell Owens stomping on the Dallas star or sticking the ball out at an opposing player as your prancing across the endzone).

???

What is a "large percentage?" Aside from a handful of receivers and our own ballerina Barnett, who else does a cheesy pre-planned dance after practically every big play he makes? At any given time, there are a few guys in the league who do it, and a vast majority who don't.

And I agree with Zool ... part of my problem is that the dance is incredibly lame. I actually liked Big Gil's gravedigger. That seemed to make a statement about---or on behalf of---the defense, as opposed to Barnett running around like a headless chicken while people go :?: and :roll: .

So if he had better moves you'd like him better? Maybe he needs to take some lessons from Emmitt Smith.

I don't really dislike Barnett, all things considered, but his celebration routine is extremely irritating. That's all. I think he's an above-average linebacker and a decent guy from what I know, and I'm glad we locked him up. I just don't believe his celebration routine is nearly as cool as he thinks it is. It never fails to annoy me.

Surely it's subjective. I thought the Gilbert's gravedigger was well done. However, Barnett running around the field waving his pretend sword = lame. Favre carrying Driver on his shoulders = cool. De'Mond Parker's "wave my feet cuz they're on fire" thing = contrived and lame. (Anybody else remember that one?) I can't pinpoint exactly why one fails and another doesn't. Just my opinion, I guess.

[MJZiggy]

Because one is spontaneous (Favre celebrations) and the other is thought out, planned and choreographed.

[esoxx]

I actually liked Parker's "hot foot" schtick. He only did it a few times that I recall.

I really don't care for most of the players histrionics but it is more part of the game now and for that reason I try not to pay attention to it so much and just blow it off. You'll go crazy otherwise obsessing if he's going to pull that samurai move on a tackle for a three yard gain down 21-10. Who cares? It's not effecting the game and if he looks foolish it's on him, not you.