Barnett Refuses to Move?

[woodbuck27]

Don't like Mr. "C" then wrap your legs around this:

Posted August 10, 2006

Barnett feels he belongs in the middle

By Rob Demovsky
rdemovsk@greenbaypressgazette.com

The Green Bay Packers will have one unhappy linebacker on their hands if they try to move Nick Barnett out of the middle linebacker position.

Barnett on Wednesday said such a move would not sit well with him.

"I would not be happy with that decision," said Barnett, who has been the Packers' starting middle linebacker since he was their first-round draft pick in 2003. "I do want to do what's best for the team, don't get me wrong, but I do like playing middle linebacker. I feel like I'm a leader there. I don't want to move. It's like my home. I've been living there for three years, and I don't want to get evicted."

The fourth-year veteran has played nothing but middle linebacker during the first week and a half of training camp, but some shifting at his position group remains a possibility, in large part because of the eye-catching play of rookie Abdul Hodge.

Though Hodge began taking some reps at the strong-side (or Sam) linebacker on Tuesday, he also is a natural middle linebacker. That's where he played throughout his college career at the University of Iowa. The third-round draft pick has been serving as Barnett's primary backup at the middle (or Mike) spot throughout the offseason and in camp.

If the Packers deem Hodge one of their top three linebackers, coach Mike McCarthy and defensive coordinator Bob Sanders will have to decide whether to try him at the Sam spot, where free-agent pickup Ben Taylor has been playing, or put him in the middle and move Barnett to Sam. First-round draft pick A.J. Hawk appears locked into the weak-side (or Will) position.

"Is the coaching staff saying he's one of the best three?" Barnett said of Hodge. "I think Taylor is doing well. I think some people are underrating him. He's a solid, mistake-free guy. That goes a long way in that position. If we can get guys out there not making mistakes, that's big.

"I've been playing the Mike position pretty well through two or three different schemes. I don't see any reason why we would even be discussing it, but if that was a decision the coach would make, I'd certainly want to talk to the coach about it."

Barnett, who met with Sanders on the field after practice on Wednesday, said no one in the organization has broached the possibility of moving with him.

"We're very happy with the production Nick's given us at the middle linebacker position," McCarthy said. "He's been consistent. He's one of our leaders on defense, and that's what you're looking for in a Mike linebacker. As far as the general philosophy, you're always going to do what's in the best interest of your football team. I understand how Nick feels and, frankly, when decisions are to be made, we'll obviously talk to the players."

Barnett is under contract through the 2007 (the final two years of his original contract were voided because he met the 45 percent playing time clause), and a move from middle linebacker could hurt his value either on the free-agent market or in negotiations with the Packers on an extension.

He said on Monday that he would like to continue his career in Green Bay beyond 2007, but he wouldn't say whether he'd feel the same way if that was at a position other than middle linebacker.

"I don't want to say that it's time, but I would like to talk about a contract extension," Barnett said. "I think I've been playing well here."

Barnett has led the Packers in tackles in each of his first three seasons. Last year, he set the franchise record with 194 tackles (including 128 solo stops). It broke Mike Douglass' mark of 180 set in 1981. Part of that can be chalked up to the position Barnett plays. The middle linebacker spot is historically a play-making position.

"Look at the numbers. That's not a myth," Sanders said. "In our defense, that's the guy in the middle. Nick did a good job, and he's getting better."

Meanwhile, Hodge said he believes he could learn the SAM spot but didn't know how long it would take him.

"Will it be a smooth transition? I don't know," Hodge said. "I know I'm coachable. I don't know what they're going to do. That's what our coaches are here for. They're here to make those decisions."

Comment:

There's two more writers stories on Nick's discontent as to the possibility that Abdul Hodge should step right into the MLB spot.

TC distractions, jeeesssshhh !

Life's tough.

FAITH - PACKERS in 2006 !!

[woodbuck27]

Excellent take Terry. Your a strong addition to OUR Forum.

The press (local) that covers "the Packers" are really tough.

We had one - count it - ONE lousy season since Favre became OUR QB. The press needs to relax some.

I really believe this is a better team than last season. Will be better prepared for the season (only real concern still - ST's and of course injuries and depth on OUR OL), and we'll see some decent Packer football - overall in 2006.

I don't expect OUR team to challenge deep into the playoffs or even "make the DAM playoff's" . . .now that fella Mora - was funny

I do expect us to crawl out of the deep hole, OUR TC and lack of preparation left us in, before Game ONE in 2005.

GO PACKERS !!

[Partial]

I think Red has a point. It's not that speed isn't important, but there are other qualities that are just as important, perhaps sometimes more important. When I was a kid, I was as slow as molasses, but I was always getting interceptions from much faster players. Ok, pro quarterbacking is a whole different ballgame than children throwing passes, but then too, the distinctions in speed are significantly less between pro football players, as Red points out. Smart play will always be more of a difference than speed. Remember Eugene Robinson?

A: Cliff Christl - You're absolutely right. You never know. A team can get on a roll, gain confidence and surprise, as you noted. But, again, I think it takes some special players and I don't see any playmakers on this team yet.

Cliff Cristl is a blind boob who takes anti-homerism to a ridiculous level. If he doesn't see any playmakers on this team then he doesn't understand the concept.

He always covers himself with not yet or not so far or that guy isn't what he was 10 years ago. Oh really, an athelete isn't what they were 10 years ago. Who would have thought? He's a plain, boring simpleton with one of the best jobs in the world and every word he writes pisses me off.

As for Barnett, I could care less if he stays or if he goes. He doesn't do much wrong but he doesn't do anything great either. Just a guy. A guy with some speed and speed fades with age (see Cliff Christl).

You beat me to it and I agree with you completely. Christl made two points that I had issues with, plus one general, overall point.

Firstly, the same quote that you referred to about Cliff not seeing playmakers. He repeated that theme a few times, when he said he didn't see 'special' players and when he said he didn't see even one 'stallion' out there. Like you, apparently, I think Christl is totally lacking in imagination. I don't know if Cliff would recognize a potential playmaker if one jumped up and bit him in the arse.

Similarly, he made that snide remark about Chatman ("...when he was playing with the likes of Antonio Chatman. You're playing with an Arena League receiver, he can drag a quarterback down to his level.") Man, that's just huge disrespect, even contempt. For a guy who played quite well for us, overall. No star, to be sure, but he never fumbled a punt and he was quite reliable as a receiver. Things like that piss me off too.

But the other thing that really hit me was, "And I think what he was saying was that players and luck will determine McCarthy's fate, just as they did Sherman's." Man, that's just codswallop. I wonder what Lombardi would have to say about Christl's take on coaching - Lombardi felt that ALL the difference between teams in the NFL was coaching.

That leads me to my general point too. Christl keeps talking about playmakers, about player talent, and his only comment about coaching was that the coaches are at the mercy of the talent and luck. He sure gives Sherman a free pass. Actually, Sherman got much more out of his players during regular season than most coaches would have. Where he fell apart was in the post season.

I wonder what Christl would have thought about watching the practices in Lombardi's first season. Especially if he'd been watching the same players in training camp over the previous few years. Lombardi takes a 1-10-1 team and turns them into a 7-5 team in his first season, with the same players! In his second year, he has the team in the championship game and he nearly won it (he ran out of time when Jim Taylor was stopped at the nine yard line as time expired). I don't remember if there were new players that year, but there certainly weren't many.

I'm not suggesting that McCarthy is a good coach, never mind great coach. I think we have yet to find that out. But if he is a good coach, you can be sure that the group of non-players the Packers have will go a lot further this year than Cliff Christl or any of his genius friends (worse than last year, my ass) could ever conceive of. And if the season goes bad, it won't prove Christl right, imo, but will be more a reflection on the coaching. On the other hand, if the team actually manages to go something like 9-7 or even, especially, 10-6, you can be sure that Christl will be dancing all year.

Great post!

[Tony Oday]

#56= 4.65 second 40 time (we think)

Hodge= 4.70

According to JSO, Barnett = 4.64 and Hodge = 4.79. That's a pretty meaningful difference. It's not a few hundredths. Now, Hodge appears to have a quick burst, but so does Barnett. No matter how much you hate Barnett, it's pretty easy to tell he's a damn fast LB.

damnit, someone gave the wrong number and screwed up all my hard work

ok, just to make it right i redid the numbers

in the time it takes barnett to get to the sideline (80 feet-ish). hodge would have gone 77.6 feet. so instead of 10 inches he would be about 1 yard behind. or about an arms length. he would also get to the same spot 1 tenth of a second after #56

so its still not that big of a deal and can easily be negation by things like reading were the play is going, sheading blocks etc. and preseason will show us who is better at those things. but i would say those things are more important then 40 times

and neither time is blazing, and neither one is going to be running down a rb in the open field.

thats what we have nick collins for

In a game of inches 36 of them is a lot to give up.

Barnett is being rightly so selfish in his view of this. Move me to a lower profile spot, keep me in Green Bay because I have earned my money. Which I agree he has. Sign the sucker to a nice extension right now. Pay dat man his money! Barnett has outplayed his contract unlike some people that have left the team. IF Barnett is moved and Hodge is the second coming of ray lewis then say thank you Barnett you played well for us here is your nice check now go play the filler LB position and knock that one out.

I would Love to see Hodge be in the top because that would give us the best young LB corp in a LONG TIME. Taylor as the backup with Pop we would be in a solid position to murder RBs...no really murder them!

[red]

i think i do agree that nick should probably get a new deal, and that as soon as he gets it he wouldn't mind moving

if we're talking about something in the 5-year 25 million range, then i'd say he's well worth it when other big named LB's are pulling in 50 million dollar deal.

thats even a good price for a SAM, which i'm guessing he would quickly become one of the better ones in the league

what he's making this year is way too little for the leader of our d.

give him some more money with all the extra cap we have. or else wait until next year (his final year to give him the new deal, that gives hodge 1 year to get adjusted to the pro level

[Tony Oday]

And the clouds parted and I agree

hehe pay him the cash and he will be happy.

Use some of the 7million we still have and give harris a little more and some playing incentives and Barnett a nice little 5 year 30 million deal that is more frontloaded than anything and have a nice LB locked up for the better part of his career.

[Creepy]

IF GB keeps him in the middle the whole year and IF he plays so well that we don't want to move him, then pay him the money.

IF he should be average like he has been the last two years, IF he is moved outside and doesn't play all that well, then don't extend and make him play out his contract or trade him.

IF he moves to SAM, IF he plays well at that position, then again show him the money and keep him at Sam.

Too many IFs to be giving any extension at this time. By mid or 3/4 season we will know if we need or want to extend or resign Barnett.

[Tony Oday]

IF GB keeps him in the middle the whole year and IF he plays so well that we don't want to move him, then pay him the money.

IF he should be average like he has been the last two years, IF he is moved outside and doesn't play all that well, then don't extend and make him play out his contract or trade him.

IF he moves to SAM, IF he plays well at that position, then again show him the money and keep him at Sam.

Too many IFs to be giving any extension at this time. By mid or 3/4 season we will know if we need or want to extend or resign Barnett.

Average MLB=Sam Cowert and the like.

Barnett is above average at the MLB not great but there are few that are. He is solid and I would rather have 11 solid guys than two great guys. He WILL get his money and should because even in this defense and AVERAGE MLB doesnt get 194 tackles. It just doesnt happen! Face it we have been spoiled having him step up and play MLB for us. If we can upgrade because Hodge is that much better Im all for it, but that wont be the case in a guys rookie season.

[Noodle]

I'm glad to see folks are agreeing on the idea of paying Barnett.

You always see this crap about "he should do what's best for the team," but then you rarely hear anyone say, "the team should do what's best for the player" as far as money goes.

Barnett's point makes perfect sense to me -- if you want me to sacrifice and go to a new position where I'll have lower production numbers for a rook who hasn't played a down, then pay me now and don't come at me in a few years and say, "gee Nick, your production numbers have gone down, no brass ring for you."

[RashanGary]

McGinn stated in his artical and I've been stating for a while that the Middle in this scheme gets all the tackles. In many schemes is the WLB but not this one. Of course Hawk gets less chance, he's eating up KGB's blockers and Hodge is running free. The reason Hodge looks better than Hawk is the same reason Barnett refuses to move.

Hodge fits in the middle nicely but I see where Barnett is coming from. Barnett should get paid and then asked to move. I completely see Barnetts view but I don't even think it has to happen right now. They can get through this season with Hodge in short yardage situations and deal with this problem next year. By then hopefully Barnett will be secured for the long haul and have no reason not to make the team oriented move. Right now he's concerned iwth his contract and that is just understandable. Get him tied up and then ask him to do what's best for the team. He hinted that he'd be happy to.

[pbmax]

But the other thing that really hit me was, "And I think what he was saying was that players and luck will determine McCarthy's fate, just as they did Sherman's." Man, that's just codswallop. I wonder what Lombardi would have to say about Christl's take on coaching - Lombardi felt that ALL the difference between teams in the NFL was coaching.

There were many good players (Hall of Famers) on Lombardi's squad his first year, and good coaching helped turn that into seven wins. Starr, Hornung, Taylor and McGee were already there. And next year he had Dowler and Ron Kramer as his TE.

There are not nearly that caliber of offensive players on this team.

The offensive talent on the 2005 Packers (esp. post injuries) was very close to what you would expect on a 4 win team. The 1959 Packers had better O talent to start with.

[Partial]

McGinn stated in his artical and I've been stating for a while that the Middle in this scheme gets all the tackles. In many schemes is the WLB but not this one. Of course Hawk gets less chance, he's eating up KGB's blockers and Hodge is running free. The reason Hodge looks better than Hawk is the same reason Barnett refuses to move.

Hodge fits in the middle nicely but I see where Barnett is coming from. Barnett should get paid and then asked to move. I completely see Barnetts view but I don't even think it has to happen right now. They can get through this season with Hodge in short yardage situations and deal with this problem next year. By then hopefully Barnett will be secured for the long haul and have no reason not to make the team oriented move. Right now he's concerned iwth his contract and that is just understandable. Get him tied up and then ask him to do what's best for the team. He hinted that he'd be happy to.

The question is though, if he's not in the middle, is he going to make 5.5 million dollars per year in impact? If he's not in the middle, you could likely get a player for 1 mil a year that will have the same impact, since he is arguing the SLB is a position that affects fewer games. I haven't read the thread, but I don't know if anyone has brought this point up.

If Ben Taylor is doing a good job on that side for veteran minimum, the 4.9 million dollar jump at that position may not be worth it. That money might be better suited at a higher impact position.

Clear as mud?

[pbmax]

Coaching can make you champions rather than just very good. It can take a weak squad and make it mediocre.

But this team is talent bereft enough, on O, that coaching alone won't solve all the problems unless every if is answered by: plays full season at near Pro Bowl level (Favre, Green/Davenport, Jennings or another WR and someone on the interior of the O Line and Clifton with bad knee).

Two years from now it might be clear that the talent was all here. But we can't know that now.

[MJZiggy]

I think that either you are misinterpreting what Barnett is saying or I am. After watching the video of this, I didn't get the impression that he was having an attitude about it. He said that he would do what's best for the team though he admitted that he wouldn't like it. Coach has said that he has no current plans to move him, and about the extension thing, I love the way he's handling that. Basically what he's saying is not that he wants the money, but that he wants to be in GB after 2007. It is the same way that DD handled it. He did not say I want more cash. He said I wanna retire in GB and how do we make that happen.

[RashanGary]

The question is though, if he's not in the middle, is he going to make 5.5 million dollars per year in impact? If he's not in the middle, you could likely get a player for 1 mil a year that will have the same impact, since he is arguing the SLB is a position that affects fewer games. I haven't read the thread, but I don't know if anyone has brought this point up.

If Ben Taylor is doing a good job on that side for veteran minimum, the 4.9 million dollar jump at that position may not be worth it. That money might be better suited at a higher impact position.

Clear as mud?

Good point...We'll see how this all pans out. I do think Barnett would be more than a role player at SLB. He can take TE's out of the passing game and that counts for something. HE's also a very effective nickle/dime LB. I don't think you can get a minimum guy to do what he does in the nickle and dime. As far as the running game goes, I agree. YOu can get a minimum guy to do what Barnett does.