Kreutz, Briggs and Urlacher all back out of pro-bowl

[HarveyWallbangers]

Barnett was the alternate middle linebacker, but Antonio Pierce has been selected to replace Urlacher. Might be because of Barnett's hand injury, and the fact he is looking for a new contract. If he were to be injured at the Pro Bowl, contract talks would stall.

More than one alternate is named. Could be that Brooks was first alternate, and Barnett is second or third alternate.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I can't complain in the end because on of these years if Favre gets in it could be the last time to see him in action. Tell favre then that the probowl is pointless.

Favre would just back out of the game--like he has the last 3 or 4 Pro Bowls. Funny that iron man is never injured enough to miss a meaningful game, but always injured at Pro Bowl time. Can't say that I blame him. I'm sure the novelty wears off after a few years on the team.

[KYPack]

Barnett was the alternate middle linebacker, but Antonio Pierce has been selected to replace Urlacher. Might be because of Barnett's hand injury, and the fact he is looking for a new contract. If he were to be injured at the Pro Bowl, contract talks would stall.

yeah,

SI said Brooks had been selected as the alternate. I should've known they were wrong.

At least Pierce sounded thrilled to be an alternate.

It's his first time.

I think Brooks replaced Lance Briggs.

OIC.

Pro Bowl shit gets confusing at times.

[Patler]

Barnett was the alternate middle linebacker, but Antonio Pierce has been selected to replace Urlacher. Might be because of Barnett's hand injury, and the fact he is looking for a new contract. If he were to be injured at the Pro Bowl, contract talks would stall.

More than one alternate is named. Could be that Brooks was first alternate, and Barnett is second or third alternate.

I think they differentiate between inside LBs and outside LBs for the alternates, just like they do for the starters. Thus, Barnett was an alternate for inside, and Brooks for the outside. I don't think they were alternates for the same positions.

Both Brooks and Antonio Pierce have been added as injury replacements, Brooks on the outside for Briggs and Pierce on the inside for Urlacher

[HarveyWallbangers]

Brooks was selected to replace Briggs, but Pierce was selected to replace Urlacher. The reason for that may have nothing to do with Barnett. He just may have been the first alternate--while Barnett could have been the second or third alternate. This has happened to Harris in previous years. He was chosen as an alternate, but not the first alternate. I don't remember JSO or packers.com breaking down whether a player was first, second, third, etc. alternate this year, so I couldn't tell you where he falls on the list of alternates.

[Partial]

So here's a question: Do we like Pierce more then Barnett? Did we pick the wrong LB? I believe they were both drafted in the same year with Pierce going to Washington in the second, right?

[Patler]

Brooks was selected to replace Briggs, but Pierce was selected to replace Urlacher. The reason for that may have nothing to do with Barnett. He just may have been the first alternate--while Barnett could have been the second or third alternate. This has happened to Harris in previous years. He was chosen as an alternate, but not the first alternate. I don't remember JSO or packers.com breaking down whether a player was first, second, third, etc. alternate this year, so I couldn't tell you where he falls on the list of alternates.

Barnett has been an alternate in the past too, but never made it. I thought I saw one article that listed first and second alternates, and Barnett was first, because I have been thinking all along that he had a real chance to make it this year, like Driver did a few years ago, Flanagan too. I've looked on nfl.com and other places I would have expected it to be, and have not found it. So it might be the recollection of a delusional old man!

But if he was the first alternate, in view of circumstances, I could see him passing it up.