Packers want Adalius Thomas

[Cheesehead Craig]

Barnett isn't even close to Briggs or Thomas...

That said, all three are very different players... Briggs is a solid all around LB, and Thomas is a hybrid that can be disruptive on all three levels - Barnett, on the other hand, has far more negatives (we've fought this one to death) than the other two do...

Regardless of system/scheme, Barnett has the least amount of value among the three... I don't think even the most ardent Barnett supporters would argue against that.

I like Barnett and agree with your post Wist. Compared to Briggs and Thomas, Barnett comes in third. I still however feel that he is a very good LB and maybe with not having to learn a new system for a year, he'll have a chance to get closer to their level.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I can agree with Barnett being behind Briggs (definitely) and Thomas (probably depends on the scheme). Somebody trying to insinuate Poppinga is close to Barnett is a joke. Barnett is closer to Briggs than Poppinga is to Barnett.

[Packnut]

QB

I know its crazy...but isn't it possible that you need both talent and scheme to win a Superbowl? I know, lets argue about it.

Well, ya need a good QB, just ask the Bears!

[HarveyWallbangers]

Because his agent has said they are closely watching the Briggs situation and feels Nick should get similar type money,it was either on here or JSO last week in an article you are right Nick did not say anything. Briggs is going to get huge money, if we offered Barnett 6 million a year right now I would bet he will turn it down. Why all the Barnett love I realize you guys haven't seen a great LB in GB for awhile but Barnett is only above average I am a little more generous than Wist he probably has him C-.

Maybe you should read this again. As far as his agent saying that he may get a Briggs type offer next year when he's a FA is agent speak. That's what they are paid to do. He didn't say he'd ask for Briggs money this year. Even an agent knows they'd have to give up money to get an agreement a year in advance. Sounds like you are reading into more than it is. The quote about Barnett surely wanting a better deal is also the reporters comments... not his agent. I'm sure he'll want more, but at this point we don't know how much more. I'd guess not much more than that.

"We have common starting ground in that they'd like to have Nick for the long haul, and he'd like to be there for the long haul," Price said Tuesday. "That's pretty much all we've established at this point. There's an incredible starting position, and after talking to Andrew Brandt, we both feel good about working together to get this done."

Part of the market for linebackers was set late last year, when Minnesota's E.J. Henderson signed a five-year, $25 million deal in December that included a $10 million signing bonus. Barnett surely will want a better deal.

The questions are, how much better, and how close to the more lucrative deal Briggs probably will sign this offseason?

Briggs, 26, has become one of the NFL's top linebackers and was selected for his second Pro Bowl this season. He'll be a free agent on March 2, but the Bears are trying to sign him to a long-term deal before then, and if they can't, they're expected to use their franchise tag on him. That would guarantee Briggs a $7.2 million salary this year, though the Bears would try to reach a long-term agreement sometime in the offseason.

Barnett, who turns 26 in May, doesn't have Briggs' credentials — he hasn't been to a Pro Bowl — but he's one of the Packers' best young players and a core member of the defense. He's also proven to be durable. In four seasons as their middle linebacker, he has missed only one game. Last season, he broke his hand against New England on Nov. 19, then sat out the following week at Seattle before playing the rest of the season wearing a cast.

With the salary cap going up about $7 million this year to about $109 million, salaries for core players will continue to escalate. Barnett will have to weigh his desire to get paid similarly to Briggs against the risk of sustaining an injury, whether he could get a Briggs-type deal in free agency next year and whether the Packers might use their franchise tag on him. It's difficult to know how much guaranteed money Briggs will get if and when he signs a long-term deal, but a decent guess is the $15 million range.

"If things pan out and everybody gets a good look at the lay of the land and what free agency could bring for a guy like Lance Briggs this year," Price said, "then we'll probably be able to say, 'Look, if we got to this point next year you could make a pretty good argument Nick is going to get Lance Briggs money.'"

[RashanGary]

"If things pan out and everybody gets a good look at the lay of the land and what free agency could bring for a guy like Lance Briggs this year," Price said, "then we'll probably be able to say, 'Look, if we got to this point next year you could make a pretty good argument Nick is going to get Lance Briggs money.'"

LMAO...

This guy wants Briggs money. Just say "NO!!" TT. Just say "NO!!"

[retailguy]

IYou can ask anybody in here, and they'll say they perceived your post the same way I did. I believe you stated that, "talent wins championships not scheme."

I'm anybody and I don't agree with you or your perception.

Bellicheck was a DISASTER in Cleveland. I remember. Talent wins, but only wins big when accompanied by scheme. Scheme doesn't do anything without talent. Ask any coach who failed and got fired. You think they all have "bad" schemes? You can't be serious.

[motife]

Cliff Christl said it's Tom Brady that made the difference that won the Super Bowls. Belichick couldn't win in Cleveland, nor in New England with Drew Bledsoe.

Imagine the Packers without Reggie White.

[falco]

But he has a grudge with me b/c I'm not on board his Marshawn Lynch whack-fest. So be it.

Esoxx, I guess you are the new ballhawk. Look out!

[pbmax]

I think wist is right about the scheme. Adalius T isn't being sought after by the Packers (if at all) to play a hybrid LB/safety or in coverage.

If there is interest, its with him as RDE instead of KGB and Jenkins. I believe he would be an improvement over either. Jenkins distinguished himself this year at DE by not being KGB and stoutness against the run. But he isn't a long term answer at the primary pass rush position.

I disagree with wist over the chances for his success. Charles Haley and Jason Taylor have both succeeded in this D as undersized DEs whose best trait was their pass rush.

He may not be either of those players (and I haven't seen him play hand down DE much) but he is better than what we have.

That leaves me with the question about the source of the report, likely the agent or someone affiliated with the player. The Packers aren't blabbing about this.

[PackerPro42]

But he has a grudge with me b/c I'm not on board his Marshawn Lynch whack-fest. So be it.

Esoxx, I guess you are the new ballhawk. Look out!

Actually I don't dislike either of the guys. We just have different opinions and I enjoy debating what ever it may be. In this instance it's about whether scheme is the main part of a successful team or if all star talent is. In all reality it's a combination of both, but I do that the scheme is the most important part in determining what players a GM seeks out. In the Thomas scenario, whether he has talent or not, I believe he's purely a 3-4 player which supports my theory of the schemes being the most important. I'm not down grading his opinion at all, but this debate does seem to be a little harsh.

[BallHawk]

But he has a grudge with me b/c I'm not on board his Marshawn Lynch whack-fest. So be it.

Esoxx, I guess you are the new ballhawk. Look out!

Welcome to the club Esoxx! If you haven't noticed, it's a growing one. I predict by draft day we should have over 10 members!

[BallHawk]

I'm not down grading his opinion at all, but this debate does seem to be a little harsh.

Yeah, ridiculing someones opinion and being cocky and arrogant totally is NOT downgrading one's opinion.

[PackerPro42]

You're the one trying to instigate an argument right now and I really don't want to get into one. Like I stated before, I don't dislike either of you guys and enjoy the many debates we go through. And I believe that I get along well with everyone on this forum, even you two, regardless of our opinions.

[BallHawk]

You're the one trying to instigate an argument right now and I really don't want to get into one. Like I stated before, I don't dislike either of you guys and enjoy the many debates we go through. And I believe that I get along well with everyone on this forum, even you two, regardless of our opinions.

I don't care if you differ from my opinion, but you have to be the most cocky and arrogant person on this forum. If someone disagrees with your opinion you ridicule them and belittle them and that is why some people don't get along with you. I know I've said this before, but you just don't listen.

[PackerPro42]

I feel that you are the most bull headed and biggest smart ass on the forum. Maybe not to everyone, but to me you definitely are. This may be the same way you interpret me because of our feud that started on the Chad Jackson thread when you continuously down graded what I said and backed me into a corner. When you do that, someone is likely to come out with their fists up. Now I don't really care what you think about me as a person, but I don't like when you continuously contradict what I have to say regardless of what it is it. That kind of irritates me. I don't like fighting with you over this but it's come to a point where it can't go on. I haven't picked a fight with you since the Chad Jackson thread and I think it's time for you to back off of me a little bit as I will do to you.

And as for the not listening part, I don't really agree with that at all. I've carried on numerous discussions with people that have not resulted in any arguments. If I disagree with you, I will state why I disagree, but I mean nothing by it. If anything else develops from it then so be it.

And as for the people that don't get a log with me, the only two that are arguing with me are you and the newly acquired esoxx. For the most part, most people agree with me and for those who don't the state why and do it in a collective manner. I don't like getting into fights with anybody, but it seems that you are constantly looking to get into arguments with me.