Tweet
I'd like to see Barnett play just about half the snaps in the first quarter of the season. He's not going to be 100% until later in the season, and they have excellent backups in Chiller and Bishop.
-
I'd like to see Barnett play just about half the snaps in the first quarter of the season. He's not going to be 100% until later in the season, and they have excellent backups in Chiller and Bishop. -
I have a feeling that you're right. Barnett may start but he's not going to play all the time. They are going to bring him back gradually and not risk him longterm. I'd say that barring any physical setbacks, he'll be the full time man after the bye week.All hail the Ruler of the Meadow! -
If he is medically cleared, there is no long term risk. If he is cleared 100%, there is absolutely no reason to bring him back slow. They already did that with the PUP and daily rehab, and week of non-contact. When he was cleared, he is full go. If h is up to speed in the D, I see no reason for him to come off the field unless he is struggling.
Chillar absolutely blows chunks against the run, the Arizona game was Robert Thomas level bad for him. Barnett can't get back fast enough. The NFCN will slaughter us if Chillar is starting at mack.
I figured out what his problem is. The guy has no football instincts. When he is in M2M coverage he looks great, when he is blitzing he looks great. When he is given a task that requires no thought, he looks great. When it comes to the run, reading the blocking, reading the back, anticipating holes and cuts, sifting through traffic, and coherent strategy, eek, he looks completely lost. In zone coverage, if he picks up the guy coming into his zone he looks great, the problem is half the time he is standing there clueless, missing the guy that came into his zone.
Hawk and the line are playing quite good, on Chillar's watch the 1's are giving up 5.1 YPC on the ground and have given up 3 explosive runs. Whenever there is an explosive run the mack is at least partially, if not fully at fault, especially with the line playing as good as they are. 3 in 60 total snaps (about a game) is totally unacceptable.
Comment
-
He may be cleared medically, but guys coming off injury can't flip a switch and play at 100%. Look at how Ryan Grant struggled when he came back. Many other examples.Originally posted by Waldo
Ya, he has to play himself back into form, but I would have him split time for start of season.Comment
-
Can Bishop play that mack spot? If so, I wonder if this "we're being super cautious" has anything to do with the possibility that - my conspiracy theory of the day - the coaches secretly want to get Bishop on the field in certain situations but don't want to piss off Barnett?
This only works though if Bishop plays that spot."The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPackComment
-
"The boy is back! The boy is back!"
BarnettComment
-
I think you are onto something.Originally posted by Fritz"There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted ThompsonComment
-
Originally posted by HarveyWallbangers
Remember the hissy fit Barnett threw when it was suggested that Hawk as a Rookie might play middle linebacker?Comment
-
No, it was when it was suggested that Hodge play MLB and Barnett move to SLB to take Pops place as a part time player.Originally posted by Scott Campbell
NVM that he was the poorest suited LB on the team to play SLB. But Bates said they do the same thing a year back so they do.
The fact that our reporters will go on these crusades with the linebackers is laughable and embarrassing. They are clueless when it comes to LB play, assignments, good play, and who is well suited for what, but they get some hint in their head and run hair brained story after story insulting our starters, pissing them off for no reason.
It's like someone clocked Brohm, found out that he was releasing the ball faster than Rodgers, so they start printing stories why Rodgers should be benched for Brohm.Comment
-
It is where Bishop has been all summer.Originally posted by Fritz
I doubt we keep 3 Macks when none can play buck, but our starting buck can back up mack.
One of Barnett, Chillar, or Bishop has to go. There isn't enough roster space for all 3, since all 3 are single position linebackers.
Chillar makes 6x more money than Bishop.
That is my clue as to who is gone.
Bishop just fits the scheme better. He is an aggressive tonesetter. Chillar is the most laid back linebacker I've ever seen. It's like he plays stoned.Comment
-
3-4 teams have kept 9-10 LBs, so I wouldn't write off Bishop or Chillar just yet. I guess it would depend on what kind of offers they'd get for those guys, but I wouldn't be surprised if they kept all three.Originally posted by Waldo"There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted ThompsonComment
-
Since the Buck is primarily a banger spot, couldn't Bishop potentially excel at it if he develops pro-linebacker instincts? He's certainly physical enough.Originally posted by Waldo
Admittedly, I have not seen Bishop play buck at all, and the worst thing that can possibly happen for a Buck is for him to guess which gap to hit and guess wrong, but Bishop is a banger...</delurk>Comment
-
In my opinion, there is a 0% chance that any one of those guys is gone unless someone offers a Roy Williams type trade for one. It will have to be quite the package to move either one. They're the two best linebackers at their respective skill (Chillar in coverage, Bishop at blitzing). These guys are going to get a lot more playing time than most think in my opinion.Originally posted by HarveyWallbangers
Also, I personally think they're going to keep some of these guys on a short leash. If Barnett or Hawk slips up, I definitely see them yanking them and going with the backups for a bit.
No doubt in my mind that Bishop could play either inside backer. Not so sure about Chillar.
Barnett
Chillar
Bishop
Hawk
Kampman
Thompson
Matthews
Poppinga
That's only 8. They're going to keep 9-10.
If I had to guess the others that they keep... I'd guess Jones and Danny Lasangna. I think that in the likely event that Jenkins gets injured and Harell is IR'd, they will have some flexibility to play 4-3 front with Kampman playing with hand on the ground.
My hope is they account for depth on the DL, as I'm sure Harrell is going to get IR'd and Jenkins is an injury waiting to happen. They're going to keep 6 most likely. All are likely to be active, but there is little depth for when Jenkins goes down. I think there is a good chance Raji gets hurt too as he missed so much of camp.Comment
-
I'm pretty sure Lansanah is making the roster, as he has played well as the backup buck (and really nobody else has), while Spencer Havner will probably make the roster as a three way player so you might count him, also they like both Brad Jones and Obiozor and will definitely keep one and might keep both.
So in theory we could go:
Buck: Hawk, Lansanah
Mack: Barnett, Bishop
LOLB: Kampman, Thompson, Obiozor
ROLB: Poppinga, Matthews, Jones
For their 10 LBs, keeping Spencer Havner as a TE who could play ILB in a pinch. Pick your least favorite of Jones and Obiozor to cut if you only want nine. 3-4 teams running this defense tend to keep have more depth at OLB than ILB.</delurk>Comment
-
I will reiterate again: There is a 0% chance that they cut Chillar. They won't trade him either unless offered a kings ransomn.
I think his contract is up after next year. Bishop's too. They'll pay one. Think of this year as an audition.Comment
Comment