Nick Barnett

[rbaloha1]

Should the Packers giving Barnett another chance given the recent cut?

[red]

Why?

Him getting dumped by one of the worst teams in the nfl just confirms that the decision for us to get rid of him was the right move

Hawk already beat out barnett one time, so why would we bring him in to replace hawk?

[Joemailman]

Why?

Him getting dumped by one of the worst teams in the nfl just confirms that the decision for us to get rid of him was the right move

Hawk already beat out barnett one time, so why would we bring him in to replace hawk?

Barnett did not compete with Hawk. Hawk and Barnett played together until Barnett got hurt in 2010 and was replaced by Bishop. Barnett was released the following offseason. I don't thing Barnett is physical enough to play in a 3-4 defense, especially one that employs only 2 defensive linemen most of the time.

[The Shadow]

Pass.
Never thought he was all that the first time around.

[red]

Barnett did not compete with Hawk. Hawk and Barnett played together until Barnett got hurt in 2010 and was replaced by Bishop. Barnett was released the following offseason. I don't thing Barnett is physical enough to play in a 3-4 defense, especially one that employs only 2 defensive linemen most of the time.

it was a given that bishop was going to be a starter the next season, the question became which of the other two would be the other guy. hawk got a new contract, barnett was kicked to the curb.

so the packers wanted hawk and not barnett. so, like i said, why would they bring nick back to replace hawk

[Guiness]

it was a given that bishop was going to be a starter the next season, the question became which of the other two would be the other guy. hawk got a new contract, barnett was kicked to the curb.

so the packers wanted hawk and not barnett. so, like i said, why would they bring nick back to replace hawk

I dunno. Does he weigh more? There's a line of thinking that's important...

[Iron Mike]

<==mental image of Barnett chasing Gore/Kaepernick 50 yards towards the end zone and giving up the last 15 yards. Instant migraine.

[rbaloha1]

I dunno. Does he weigh more? There's a line of thinking that's important...

Dude has bulked up a bit and yes it is important along with playing with a nasty attitude. Loved NB's feistiness and leadership.

IMO if he can pass a physical and signs at an extremely good cap friendly number -- sign um braddah.

[pbmax]

memory fail. Barnett never made it to camp that year.

[mraynrand]

Barnett was a great athlete, and with that athleticism, he compensated for a lack of football instincts. Nick made a lot of false steps, getting himself out of position, thus requiring 'outstanding pursuit' to make the play that should have been made with the first read. I can't imagine that improving with loss of physical skills, but who knows? I haven't watched him play much. Perhaps he's improved his reads/instinct and can now play great inside. But then why would Buffalo release him? No thank you.

[Patler]

Should the Packers giving Barnett another chance given the recent cut?

Fair question, let's look at some of the facts involved:

- Barnett will be 32 before the start of training camp.
- He was a leader on D in Buffalo, making just $3.5 million for next year, yet they let him go.
- Buffalo officially listed him as "failed physical"

Those three factors alone argue for nothing more than a minimum wage contract for a "tryout" in TC; like they did with a few D-lineman last year.

But then, consider also the following:
- Bishop and Smith return next year.
- TT traded up to get Manning, who had sort of a lost rookie year, starting with significant illness in TC.
- they have cheaper alternatives for backups, guys with proven ST play (Jones, Francois, Lattimer, etc)
- GB could have kept Barnett and released either Hawk or Bishop two years ago, but opted for Hawk & Bishop.
- LB could be a target for draft day by GB.
- Barnett was no longer wanted by a team needing to improve on defense.

They should want better than him as a starter, and for backups they need guys who play Special teams and/or have upside potential. Barnett seems more like a guy to keep track of, who could be brought in and gotten up to speed quickly if there are a rash of injuries to linebackers during the season.

[mraynrand]

Barnett seems more like a guy to keep track of, who could be brought in and gotten up to speed quickly when there are a rash of injuries to linebackers during the season.

fify. good post

[pbmax]

Fair question, let's look at some of the facts involved:

- Barnett will be 32 before the start of training camp.
- He was a leader on D in Buffalo, making just $3.5 million for next year, yet they let him go.
- Buffalo officially listed him as "failed physical"

Those three factors alone argue for nothing more than a minimum wage contract for a "tryout" in TC; like they did with a few D-lineman last year.

But then, consider also the following:
- Bishop and Smith return next year.
- TT traded up to get Manning, who had sort of a lost rookie year, starting with significant illness in TC.
- they have cheaper alternatives for backups, guys with proven ST play (Jones, Francois, Lattimer, etc)
- GB could have kept Barnett and released either Hawk or Bishop two years ago, but opted for Hawk & Bishop.
- LB could be a target for draft day by GB.
- Barnett was no longer wanted by a team needing to improve on defense.

They should want better than him as a starter, and for backups they need guys who play Special teams and/or have upside potential. Barnett seems more like a guy to keep track of, who could be brought in and gotten up to speed quickly if there are a rash of injuries to linebackers during the season.

This analysis does not take into account the fact that the dude clearly bulked up a bit.

[Patler]

Fair question, let's look at some of the facts involved:

- Barnett will be 32 before the start of training camp.
- He was a leader on D in Buffalo, making just $3.5 million for next year, yet they let him go.
- Buffalo officially listed him as "failed physical"

Those three factors alone argue for nothing more than a minimum wage contract for a "tryout" in TC; like they did with a few D-lineman last year.

But then, consider also the following:
- Bishop and Smith return next year.
- TT traded up to get Manning, who had sort of a lost rookie year, starting with significant illness in TC.
- they have cheaper alternatives for backups, guys with proven ST play (Jones, Francois, Lattimer, etc)
- GB could have kept Barnett and released either Hawk or Bishop two years ago, but opted for Hawk & Bishop.
- LB could be a target for draft day by GB.
- Barnett was no longer wanted by a team needing to improve on defense.

They should want better than him as a starter, and for backups they need guys who play Special teams and/or have upside potential. Barnett seems more like a guy to keep track of, who could be brought in and gotten up to speed quickly if there are a rash of injuries to linebackers during the season.

This analysis does not take into account the fact that the dude clearly bulked up a bit.

How does any increased bulk change any of the factors I listed?

- Does it make him younger?
- Does it change his salary or any of the other conditions resulting in his release by Buffalo?
- Does it change his physical condition at his exit exam which lead to a designation of "failed physical"?
- Does it change anything about the Packers needs and/or other possible starters?
- Does it change anything about the younger and/or cheaper alternatives available for backup/ST roles?
- Does it really change his suitability for a reserve role?
- With him, would it really change the Packers thinking for the draft?
- Does it change the fact that a bad defense let a relatively inexpensive team leader go?

Maybe it would have a minimal impact on a Hawk/Barnett comparison, but that's about it. I doubt it makes him fit their desires for a starter or their ideals for a reserve.

In my opinion, a few extra pounds doesn't change the Packers interest in him.

[sharpe1027]

This analysis does not take into account the fact that the dude clearly bulked up a bit.

Exactly. The Packers clearly need more weight on the field so they can become more physical. Who currently weighs more, Hawk or Barnett?