Barnett Refuses to Move?

[Partial]

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.

That's true. Plus, in the scheme we're running, the linebackers are supposed to be the playmakers. I don't think he'll have much impact in the running game other than stealing tackles from Hodge since he's lightening quick, but he certainly would be quite skilled in the passing game, and would definitely still handle the nickel and dime situations. I guess we should look at him as a playmaker and good linebacker instead of by what position he'd play. 5.5 mil is steep, though. That's gotta be approaching the franchise number for a linebacker, i'd imagine.

[HarveyWallbangers]

"I think that either you are misinterpreting what Barnett is saying or I am."

I agree. I just listened to the video, and either the words come out on paper harsher than he sounds or they only took bits and pieces of his interview. The first sentence he said he'll do what's best for the team.

[MJZiggy]

I'm thinking this may be a case of bloodthirsty reporters looking for offseason controversy. There is a lot of "interpretation" and "paraphrasing" in those articles, IMO. (I am so harsh on the media, but it's their job to give me the real story, not the attention grabbing headline.

[wist43]

What Barnett does, or does not get paid when it comes time for him to get a new contract is irrelevant. If the team is better by moving him, they move him. It's not subject to debate... except by fans in the forums.

Barnett is not a blue chip calibur player of the sort where they should care one wit about what he thinks about his possibly being moved. He thumps his chest about his tackle numbers, but the reality is he's a very, very flawed player. To me, it's remarkable that he's able to fool so many people into thinking that he's a good player.

I challenge any of you to name me one instance in Barnett's 3 years at MLB where he shot the gap and blew up the ball carrier the way that Hodge did in last Saturday's scrimmage.

Hodge had more impressive hits/stops in one scrimmage than Barnett has had in 3 years. Hodge is limited as well, but as a run defender he's lights out, and Barnett is a liability. It's that simple.

In pass coverage it's a different story, but what we're talking about here is the base defense, i.e. primarily run defense... Barnett hasn't a leg to stand on in this argument.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Whatever. Like Barnett has never had a big hit in the backfield. I'm not going to argue that Barnett is a bigger hitter, but that's far from the only thing that is important in a LB. How about we see Hodge actually play against another team before annointing him the second coming. That's about as knee jerk as determining A.J. Hawk as a bust after one scrimmage.