ABDUL HODGE BEGINS WORKING AT STRONG-SIDE LINEBACKER

[outflow]

It's still early.

Now with that said...I don't like where this is going. It very well may be the first big no no for MM. The message your sending is that awwwwe poor Nick Barnett will get pissy so lets try Hodge out at strong side. Thats a dangerous message to be sending the team.

I say you keep Hodge at 2nd string...give Barnett competition and see where your at 2 games into the preseason. Make Barnett work for it, he certainly hasn't shown me in the past couple of years that he's untouchable.

[HarveyWallbangers]

SAM = strongside LB

Strongside LB = LB over the TE

Sometimes there are two TE sets, sometimes RBs come out of the backfield on the weakside, and sometimes the defense plays a zone where a WLB is responsible for coverage in his zone. Thus, all LBs need to cover a little bit. However, the SLB is going to be the one that needs to cover the most.

These LBs aren't interchangeable in that they'll have equal coverage on the TE. They are interchangeable in how they line up. Some schemes the SLB might be closer to the line of scrimmage. In this scheme, all of the LBs will lineup about 7 yards off the line of scrimmage and the coaches want them to run to the ball (little gap responsibility). They all need to cover (with the SLB being the one that will cover the most).

[woodbuck27]

Some "in your face" from this Packer fan:

Sam I Am (Not)



Hearing what for him are the unique footsteps of competition, Nick Barnett—the best mike LB GBP has had since Hardy Nickerson—has announced he doesn’t want to move outside for Abdul Hodge, or anybody else, even though it might be in the best interests of the franchise.

I can’t blame him. The move would confirm and indeed seal—in the year before Barnett becomes a free agent—what everyone already knows: He has little to no playmaking ability. He is a mediocre linebacker at best—a quintessential stalwart of the Uncle Mikey Era.

Yes, he last season set a tackle record for GBP. (The record was previously held by Mike Douglass—which shows you how much it means.) Only six of those 194 tackles, however, produced a loss of yards. Meanwhile, according to Bob McGinn’s unofficial tally, Barnett missed 20 tackles in 2005—four short of the franchise record, set by Nate Wayne.

The only other defender to have 20 missed tackles since McGinn has been keeping track? Marques Anderson, Charles Woodson’s drinking buddy.

Interceptions? Nick’s had just five in his career, along with only six career sacks, not to mention a single forced fumble. At least he’s consistently nonproductive.

Barnett is now demanding a contract extension if McCarthy moves him outside, He doesn’t want to move because he’d be fighting off tight ends while watching two rookies have their names called about 20 times more by Bill Jartz. He doesn’t want to become a smaller Na’il Diggs, get beat up, and lose his reputation for durability—which is all he really has. Who can blame him?

But how McCarthy handles this situation, along with how he handles Favre’s interception binges, will set the course for his tenure.

Barnett is preening for a role he hasn’t excelled at—one he inherited (like BJ Sander) because he was drafted into it. While Hodge is struggling in coverage, he has by all accounts substantial upside, something Barnett has convincingly failed to exhibit.

And now Barnett, shamefully, is lobbying for Ben Taylor to get consideration at sam, as if this is a question of showing respect to veterans. (Chris Havel,, sadly, has fallen for it.) That’s insane; that’s Lindy Infante loser talk. Taylor might be a small improvement over Diggs or Robert Thomas. He has done absolutely nothing over his career to indicate that he is a championship-caliber playmaker.

And make no mistake—what’s at stake here is whether MM is committed to winning championships. A lineup of Barnett, Taylor, and Hawk doesn’t do that. But a lineup of Hawk, Hodge, and Brady Poppinga might. Whoops—where’s Nick Barnett’s name in that trio? Hmmm….

If McCarthy heeds the pouts and threats of somebody who thinks he has earned a position by fiat, by keeping it warm, we have a problem.

If he starts Hodge now or by 1 October, we might have something more promising.



Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 at 04:15PM by Robert Lalasz

[Cheesehead Craig]

Good 'ol Robert. Great writer and always there to bring a Packer fan crashing down to earth. He's a bit on the pessimistic side for Packer fans. I personally like Barnett and think he should stay at MLB at this point.

[run pMc]

I think Barnett is a better fit on the outside than Hodge. I don't think Hodge has the same speed, although he is a better run defender. Hodge seem like a 2-down & short-yardage MLB.
I think training Hodge in multiple positions gets him more opportunities to be on the field, and is a way to introduce more competition for Taylor (who I think will start).
Finally, isn't this a contract year for Barnett? If it is, there's almost no way he will play outside. Putting him out there will alienate him from management & he won't resign.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I thought somebody wrote that Barnett is signed through 2007.

[billy_oliver880]

Isn't it up to the coaches who is going to be best in the middle? It seems like they want Hodge there.

[Partial]

So Wist's name is Robert eh...

[pbmax]

Yes, he last season set a tackle record for GBP. (The record was previously held by Mike Douglass—which shows you how much it means.) Only six of those 194 tackles, however, produced a loss of yards. Meanwhile, according to Bob McGinn’s unofficial tally, Barnett missed 20 tackles in 2005—four short of the franchise record, set by Nate Wayne.

Thank Woodbuck, for finding someone who was willing to do the research I was not. Total tackles are a HORRIBLE way to measure a player's effectiveness. Especially when used alone.

This applies to Kampman as well.

It doesn't mean they aren't effective, it just means total tackles won't make you an All Pro.

[red]

I thought somebody wrote that Barnett is signed through 2007.

i've been reading on here and in some interviews posted on here that he is signed through 2007. but the nflpa (national football league players accosiation)site says he's signed through 2009. i would think the NFLPA would know better then anyone, but whoe knows

i would say its safe to say he's signed through next season at least

http://www.nflpa.org/Resources/ActivePlayerSearch.aspx?id=34589

ok i just read where the last 2 years were voidable if he reached certain playing time numbers, and i'm sure he hit those right away

so he's signed for sure through 2007

[pbmax]

SAM = strongside LB

Strongside LB = LB over the TE

Sometimes there are two TE sets, sometimes RBs come out of the backfield on the weakside, and sometimes the defense plays a zone where a WLB is responsible for coverage in his zone. Thus, all LBs need to cover a little bit. However, the SLB is going to be the one that needs to cover the most.

These LBs aren't interchangeable in that they'll have equal coverage on the TE. They are interchangeable in how they line up. Some schemes the SLB might be closer to the line of scrimmage. In this scheme, all of the LBs will lineup about 7 yards off the line of scrimmage and the coaches want them to run to the ball (little gap responsibility). They all need to cover (with the SLB being the one that will cover the most).

Harvey, these circumstances you describe affect all teams and all schemes.

And yes, the Packer scheme has both OLBs 3 yards off the LOS just inside the ends.

What I'd like to know is if the Packers have the OLBs swap sides depending on the strength of the formation in a one TE set.

I simply can't remember from last year and of course, I forgot this question when I was watching the game.

If they swap, Hawk will see the TE only on motion and double TEs. If they don't swap, depending on the opponent, he might see the TE 40 versus 60% of the time.

Maybe someone can remind absent minded me to pay attention during the chat for the next preseason game!

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'd say teams with a right-handed QB generally play their TEs on the rightside more than 60% of the time. Of course, they would change if they knew they could exploit a matchup on the opposite side.

[woodbuck27]

I thought somebody wrote that Barnett is signed through 2007.

My info. says he is "in fact" signed till the end of 2007.