http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...0/week7/2.html
Defensive Player of the Week
Nick Barnett, LB, Green Bay. To watch this game was to watch one of the most frustrating days of Peyton Manning's career. The Packers defense, led by Barnett (six tackles, two tackles for loss, excellent sideline-to-sideline athleticism), kept Manning scoreless on eight of 10 possessions and forced him into throwing two interceptions, both returned for Green Bay touchdowns.
This must come as bitter "eating crow" for the Barnett-Bashers on this forum who continually belittle Barnett's skills and value to this team.
Peter King has spoken. So he hath proclaimed it, so shall it be!
I think King must have owed him a beer or something and they settled on this.
"You're all very smart, and I'm very dumb." - Partial
Thank goodness for Peter King. Without him I wouldnt realize that drag down tackles are the new MVP material. Here I thought stopping a back for no more gain or even hitting him backwards was the idea.
Originally Posted by 3irty1
I have already e-mailed Peter King on this one. What a dope!!! Barnett is not the reason the Packers keep Peyton down. As I stated in another thread if Manning doesn't throw the INTs it's a 20 point swing and the D doesn't look that good.
I give all the credit to Woodson, T Williams, Rouse and "Pro Bowl" Nick Collins. Chillar played well also.
Why Barnett? He had a lot of tackles isn't that what our D scheme is supposed to create for the MLB?
What I saw on run play after play was Barnett getting blown off the ball unable to shed blockers.
On the other hand, Barnett has led the team in tackles this year. He's the guy managing the total defensive effort with the radio in his helmet and should get some credit when the defense puts together a complete effort like this one.
I think there's been a learning curve regarding on field communication and the radio. Barnett's had a lot more responsibility than in the past and is only just now putting all the pieces together.
HOFer
The pundits here have to bag on somebody. It might as well be Barnett. A couple of season ago it was KGB. Last year it was Kurt Schottenheimer.
It'll be someone new soon.... just be patient.
I thought it was always all TT's fault?The pundits here have to bag on somebody. It might as well be Barnett. A couple of season ago it was KGB. Last year it was Kurt Schottenheimer.
It'll be someone new soon.... just be patient.
You'd think everybody would know that by now.
Ripping on Kurt Schottenheimer is not out of style...never will be...he still sucks! FIRE Kurt Schottenheimer!!!!!
Swede: My expertise in this area is extensive. The essential difference between a "battleship" and an "aircraft carrier" is that an aircraft carrier requires five direct hits to sink, but it takes only four direct hits to sink a battleship.
I have already e-mailed Peter King on this one. What a dope!!! Barnett is not the reason the Packers keep Peyton down. As I stated in another thread if Manning doesn't throw the INTs it's a 20 point swing and the D doesn't look that good.
I give all the credit to Woodson, T Williams, Rouse and "Pro Bowl" Nick Collins. Chillar played well also.
Why Barnett? He had a lot of tackles isn't that what our D scheme is supposed to create for the MLB?
What I saw on run play after play was Barnett getting blown off the ball unable to shed blockers.
Hmmm....a Packer fan emailing King to tell him that Barnett does not deserve any credit for holding an explosive offense down on Sunday. Sure, the secondary played well but so did Barnett. I don't know what more the guy can do to satisfy some of you. It's kind of pathetic. Peter King may look at your email and say "And this guys is calling ME a dope?" But maybe not.
There's a difference between "playing well" and playing at such a level as to be anointed "defensive player of the week." If Barnett's performance was the best out of the 300 or so defensive efforts out there this week, it was a sad, sad day for defense in the NFL.
IMO Barnett did his job and managed not to fuck up or whip himself into such a self-induced rage as to act stupid or play stupid, as he too often does. If that's the new gold standard for defensive players, then, well, I guess he's the top dog this week.
"You're all very smart, and I'm very dumb." - Partial
HOFer
wow, i really didn't see anything too special about nicks game
he did have a couple big plays towards the end, but they weren't as big as collins and rouse's picks. and woodson just had played a complete great game, as usual
This forum defines many, many packer fans. Maybe sports fans in general. Nothing is ever good enough. It really is sad. Oh well, it looks like I'm in the minority on this one. So maybe I'm the dope!:P
You really thought the Barnett was the Defensive MVP for the whole league?I have already e-mailed Peter King on this one. What a dope!!! Barnett is not the reason the Packers keep Peyton down. As I stated in another thread if Manning doesn't throw the INTs it's a 20 point swing and the D doesn't look that good.
I give all the credit to Woodson, T Williams, Rouse and "Pro Bowl" Nick Collins. Chillar played well also.
Why Barnett? He had a lot of tackles isn't that what our D scheme is supposed to create for the MLB?
What I saw on run play after play was Barnett getting blown off the ball unable to shed blockers.
Hmmm....a Packer fan emailing King to tell him that Barnett does not deserve any credit for holding an explosive offense down on Sunday. Sure, the secondary played well but so did Barnett. I don't know what more the guy can do to satisfy some of you. It's kind of pathetic. Peter King may look at your email and say "And this guys is calling ME a dope?" But maybe not.
Chillar had 3 more tackles than Barnett, two solo. He kept on Dallas Clarke all game and limited 4 yard crossing paterns to 4 yards.
T Williams had 7 solo tackles and a FF. He was tight in coverage all day against a top tiered WR.
Woodson had 2 tackles. What a slacker!!! Limited Harrison most of the day.
Rouse had 1 more tackle than Barnett and had an INT return for a TD.
Collins who I thought played well had only 1 tackle for the game.
Harrison and Wayne had 4 catches for 35 yards for the game. The DB played awesome.
I thought Barnett had a steady game but got pushed off the ball numerous times by blockers. That has to be the first time in weeks we have seen the samuri dance.
I have been wondering if Barnett is more hurt than the Packers have acknowledged. He isn't playing as well as last year.
Notice I am not calling for Nick Barnetts replacement.This forum defines many, many packer fans. Maybe sports fans in general. Nothing is ever good enough. It really is sad. Oh well, it looks like I'm in the minority on this one. So maybe I'm the dope!
Wouldn't you be surprised if my e-mail lands in Tuesdays Edition.I have already e-mailed Peter King on this one. What a dope!!! Barnett is not the reason the Packers keep Peyton down. As I stated in another thread if Manning doesn't throw the INTs it's a 20 point swing and the D doesn't look that good.
I give all the credit to Woodson, T Williams, Rouse and "Pro Bowl" Nick Collins. Chillar played well also.
Why Barnett? He had a lot of tackles isn't that what our D scheme is supposed to create for the MLB?
What I saw on run play after play was Barnett getting blown off the ball unable to shed blockers.
Hmmm....a Packer fan emailing King to tell him that Barnett does not deserve any credit for holding an explosive offense down on Sunday. Sure, the secondary played well but so did Barnett. I don't know what more the guy can do to satisfy some of you. It's kind of pathetic. Peter King may look at your email and say "And this guys is calling ME a dope?" But maybe not.
I would be. My point is this. Peter King wants to give Nick Barnett, A GREEN BAY PACKER, some props. LET HIM! Geesh. So what if he believes Barnett played lights out. Maybe he saw something you didn't? Well, obviously he did. Ha ha. But don't email the guy, as a Packer fan, and take a shit on Barnett. Let the media put Barnett over if they want. Why would you email him and basically ask him to take it back? IMHO that is just silly.
Hey, it is great to see the Pack get some props. But its the wrong guy and you know it!!!
HOFer
Well, Woodson was our stud, but if King wants to give Barnett props, that's fine. I guess it all depends on how you worded the email. If you dumped on Barnett, then I don't agree with that. If you said something like "hey Barnett was solid, but Woodson was the real MVP," then that's good to go in my book.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote