future of LB's...

[wist43]

barnett improved this season because we actually had other capable backers who swarm to the ball. for a few seasons, barnett seemed like the only LB out there and thats why his tackles are really high. but he also had to cover a lot more ground, probably causing him to take bad angles. you can also argue that barnett didnt have to learn yet another scheme (donatell, slowik, bates, sanders [same as bates]). but that said, he is a solid starter but not quite playmaking, pro bowl level yet.

as for adalius thomas, im not sure how much we can use him. the ravens used him in so many ways because the rest of their defense has crazy talent to adjust. iunno if thomas is the SLB backer we are looking for in our scheme.

You must see a lot of AFC, too

Thomas plays a wild card for the Ravens. Last season I saw him play 5 positions on D in the same game. Once I saw him make the first play at RDE. They put in another end and Thomas dropped back as a safety for the next down, then he was the weak side LB on 3rd down.

It's tought to know if he'd be that good at any one spot.

Seems like Rex ryan got the most out him as the rover dude.

Thomas and Merriman are two prime examples of the advantages of the 3-4... Neither one of them would have a place in Green Bay's passive scheme.

What does it say about a defensive system when animals like those two guys would be so out of place as to be rendered useless??? I hate the scheme the Packers run - it's far too passive and predictable.

Good offenses will continue to torch em... too many of you guys think they're really on to something based soley on the last 4 games - 4 games against 4 of the worst offenses in the league... or at least against teams that had mailed it in.

The Jets running up 8,000 yds and scoring 6 billion pts in the 1st half is a much better indicator of what the Packers defense is all about.

[MJZiggy]

Then who's gonna replace him?

[Noodle]

That is what the Packers need, a linebacker that can just take the TE out of the game. A guy like Wayne Simmons was for a couple years. The TE never even got off the line of scrimmage when he got into them. Now we try to "cover" the TE, instead of physically dominating him. For the most part it has not worked, other than Na'il Diggs in his first couple years. But he lost it when they tried to move him to the weakside, and never got it back.

Man do I agree with this. Covering a TE who gets clean off the line is a bitch. They've got the whole friggin field to work with. You have to be an amazing stud to do it. Instead of hoping your Sam can run with the guy (fat chance), it's much better to get a guy who will just smack the SOB early and often, knock off the TE timing, and keep him from running in space.

You have to get guys to fit your scheme. I don't see how Briggs does that. We'd have 3 Wills. It'd be a waste to move Hawk to Sam, Barnett has shown he can do the job at Mike, so what'll do with Briggs? Waste his talents at Sam? No way. I say look for a proven badass Sam instead.

I'm for keeping our set, maybe getting

[Partial]

I think I agree with Noodle.

[Fritz]

Wist, I do note that you said Barnett played okay, and I commend you. My early response was more about the notion of Barnett as "punk." I, like you, do not like the celebrations when the team is getting whipped, but that doesn't qualify someone as "punk" in my book. To me, "punk" is more like Michael Vick or T.O., guys who are in it solely for themselves. Or like a Cletidus Hunt who worked just hard enough to get the big contract, then slacked.

I like Barnett enough to believe he ought to be given an extension. If you're looking to replace a linebacker, make it Poppinga.

And hey all, how about we not get mad at TT for not signing Briggs before the guy even becomes available. Tony Gonzalez, anyone?

[Merlin]

Enough is enough. Barnett is a solid MLB. Letting him go for a "younger" Briggs? Bringing in an OLB to replace a solid MLB? The stats don't lie, I will put Barnett up against ANY MLB and he will come out just fine. He is in the top 10 if not top 5. Barnett is a 4 year veteran who had to go through 4 different defensive schemes. Not many MLB's go through that ON THE SAME TEAM! Yet no one is better in coverage then he is. He is agressive as Urlacher and the REASON Urlacher get's a few more big plays is because he plays behind a BETTER DEFENSIVE LINE. Barnett had a broken hand the last 4 games of the season and STILL played well. Had our defensive line played that well the first 8 games and Barnett not been injured I guarantee he would have as many big plays as Urlacher. The only reason Urlacher get's all the hype is because he was on some very bad Bears teams and he was the only bright spot on defense. RING ANY BELLS??? Barnett is worth it, Briggs is not. Why? Packers DL vs Bears DL 2006.

[red]

barnetts good, and i think we should keep him, but he's nowhere near all world like you're trying to make him out to be. and i don't think he comes close to urlacher.

if i had my choice between nick and urlacher, that might be the easiest choice i would ever have to make in my life. urlacher brings so much more to the table

i hate the bears, but i love the way that guy plays

[Fritz]

barnetts good, and i think we should keep him, but he's nowhere near all world like you're trying to make him out to be. and i don't think he comes close to urlacher.

if i had my choice between nick and urlacher, that might be the easiest choice i would ever have to make in my life. urlacher brings so much more to the table

i hate the bears, but i love the way that guy plays

I don't know. If you had to choose between Hillary Clinton and Heidi Klum, wouldn't that be the easiest choice you'd ever have to make in your life?

[Bretsky]

barnetts good, and i think we should keep him, but he's nowhere near all world like you're trying to make him out to be. and i don't think he comes close to urlacher.

if i had my choice between nick and urlacher, that might be the easiest choice i would ever have to make in my life. urlacher brings so much more to the table

i hate the bears, but i love the way that guy plays

I don't know. If you had to choose between Hillary Clinton and Heidi Klum, wouldn't that be the easiest choice you'd ever have to make in your life?

Neither ?

[red]

barnetts good, and i think we should keep him, but he's nowhere near all world like you're trying to make him out to be. and i don't think he comes close to urlacher.

if i had my choice between nick and urlacher, that might be the easiest choice i would ever have to make in my life. urlacher brings so much more to the table

i hate the bears, but i love the way that guy plays

I don't know. If you had to choose between Hillary Clinton and Heidi Klum, wouldn't that be the easiest choice you'd ever have to make in your life?

well thats a little tuff

you can't overlook the fact that hillary is loaded, and has big time connections. nothiing wrong with a sugar momma

[Cheesehead Craig]

I like Barnett and much like how Merlin said, the DL of the Pack needs to improve to let our LBs do more. Back in the Camelot days of the Pack when we had White and Jones at DE and Gilbert and Dotson at DT, our LB suddenly could play better behind one of the best DL in the game. I think that the action of moving Jenkins to DE is going to go a long way towards making the DL, hence the LB, better.

I'm not going to get involved in a Barnett vs Briggs debate. They play in different schemes and have different supporting casts. Too many outside variables to make a valid comparison of one vs the other.

That said, I believe Briggs to be the superior pass rusher and blitzer. That may be a good portion of the argument that some would rather have Briggs than Barnett.