Packers want Adalius Thomas

[wist43]

In this case, scheme means everything...

Generally speaking, the Packers scheme is very limiting in the types of players you can bring in to play it... to me, Thomas/Merriman types have no place in this scheme - their talent would be wasted, and the big $$$ contract it would take to lure them would be wasted.

Thomas simply doesn't fit... at this point, the Packers would be much better off signing Jenkins to a 3-4 year extension... he fits the bill much better than does Thomas.

Like I said, I couldn't fathom why Thomas, or any 3-4 hybrid type of player would even consider a 4-3 team that runs a scheme like what the Packers run...

[Merlin]

Why wouldn't we keep all three and have the best linebacking corps in the league?

Because I'd rather have Poppinga than Barnett for the $$ and for what Poppinga brings

Back away from the crack pipe...

[Merlin]

Barnett is not a difference maker. I stand by that. I consider him and Poppinga very similar players as far as total talent. Barnett is stronger in teh pass, Poppinga is stronger in teh run and has shown alot of improvement in the pass. When it comes to paying for an impact player; I'd pay Thomas and let Barnett go becuase I think there is a big gap in the two as far as on field impact goes.

WOW......not a big impact player? You mean a negative impact player like Popinga? Barnett is a leader on the field, Popinga better against the run? When? After Barnett has the guy wrapped up and Popinga finally gets there?

WHAT TEAM WHERE YOU WATCHING??

[Packnut]

Scheme

Just to echo a couple of earlier posts, scheme in the NFL means EVERYTHING. Way to many believe talent is the over-riding factor, but the Patriots have proven beyond ANY reasonable doubt that you get players who fit your scheme.

I would dis-agree though that he does'nt fit our scheme. For what-ever the reason, Sanders at times believes in putting his OLB on the slot or 4th WR. I hate this passs coverage scheme but if Sanders is intent on running it, then Thomas fits the bill. I'm not a Poppinga backer like most are here so I would be giddy with joy if TT got Thomas to replace Popp.

[esoxx]

I don't believe any of these offseason player acquistion rumors. Makes for interesting conversation but rarely come to fruition.

IF it were true it would be great. Worrying about where he's going to play is missing the point. You're adding another Pro Bowl talent to your defense. You win with talent, not scheme. Thomas would make an impact and you want more of those type of players versus JAGs. The more blue chips you have, the better your chances to win.

Sounds simple but sometimes people get so bogged down in peripheral thoughts they can't see the forest through the trees.

You're right. If you put a bunch of all stars on a team, you could probably have Gary Coleman as the coach because scheme means absolutely nothing. You're speaking like a true madden player, scheme is the reason that the Patriots won 4 super bowls. If you look at their roster, they didn't have outstanding talent. Building a super star team has nothing to do with all star players. Sure it helps, but what a GM looks for is people that can fit their system the best and that are able to be the most productive in the scheme that they run. If you just go throw all your money on "all star" players that don't fit you system, you'll go bankrupt and never have a successful team.

You couldn't have misrepresented my post anymore if you had tried. But I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing with someone who thinks the Patriots "won 4 super bowls."

Tell Tom Brady, Richard Seymour, Tedy Bruschi, Rodney Harrison, Adam Vinatieri, Deon Branch, among others they're not talented. I doubt if Joey Harrington was QB they make a Super Bowl. Yeah, they have talent.

If you think scheme is the main thing that wins and you only need to plug in players that fit, then why did Belichick flop in Cleveland so badly? Surely his scheme and philosophies were similar back then. Maybe b/c he had an aging Bernie Kosar, Mike Tomczak and an erractic Vinny Testarverde as his starting QB's. In other words, talent. And at the most important position.

The NFL is a copycat league. If it's just the "Belichick scheme" it would be emulated and by theory it should be just as successful elsewhere.

No, the Patriots should be lauded as much for their player personnel moves and acquisitions as much as anything. But somehow that's always overlooked and a simple-minded "scheme" reason is asserted for such success. Puh-lease.

[prsnfoto]

If Barnett only wants similar money to Henderson 5 years 25 mil. I will eat your hat Harvey and I would also sign him I think he wants 6 and 40-45 then you let him walk into the sunset and never look back he hasn't even made a fricking ProBowl. Thomas is a beast and I don't care if we play 4-3,3-4 2-6,6-2 whatever he would be a huge pickup.

Why does everyone think he wants top dollar? Nothing has led me to believe he wants anything more than fair market value, but in a longer contract.

I see no reason not to resign Barnett. He seems like the type of guy who would step his game up with a contract, ala Kampman.

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-.

[PackerPro42]

I don't believe any of these offseason player acquistion rumors. Makes for interesting conversation but rarely come to fruition.

IF it were true it would be great. Worrying about where he's going to play is missing the point. You're adding another Pro Bowl talent to your defense. You win with talent, not scheme. Thomas would make an impact and you want more of those type of players versus JAGs. The more blue chips you have, the better your chances to win.

Sounds simple but sometimes people get so bogged down in peripheral thoughts they can't see the forest through the trees.

You're right. If you put a bunch of all stars on a team, you could probably have Gary Coleman as the coach because scheme means absolutely nothing. You're speaking like a true madden player, scheme is the reason that the Patriots won 4 super bowls. If you look at their roster, they didn't have outstanding talent. Building a super star team has nothing to do with all star players. Sure it helps, but what a GM looks for is people that can fit their system the best and that are able to be the most productive in the scheme that they run. If you just go throw all your money on "all star" players that don't fit you system, you'll go bankrupt and never have a successful team.

You couldn't have misrepresented my post anymore if you had tried. But I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing with someone who thinks the Patriots "won 4 super bowls."

Tell Tom Brady, Richard Seymour, Tedy Bruschi, Rodney Harrison, Adam Vinatieri, Deon Branch, among others they're not talented. I doubt if Joey Harrington was QB they make a Super Bowl. Yeah, they have talent.

If you think scheme is the main thing that wins and you only need to plug in players that fit, then why did Belichick flop in Cleveland so badly? Surely his scheme and philosophies were similar back then. Maybe b/c he had an aging Bernie Kosar, Mike Tomczak and an erractic Vinny Testarverde as his starting QB's. In other words, talent. And at the most important position.

The NFL is a copycat league. If it's just the "Belichick scheme" it would be emulated and by theory it should be just as successful elsewhere.

No, the Patriots should be lauded as much for their player personnel moves and acquisitions as much as anything. But somehow that's always overlooked and a simple-minded "scheme" reason is asserted for such success. Puh-lease.

Congratulations on contradicting what you were trying to support. As I stated before, the scheme and correct players make a successful team, not all star talent. Yes, Bellicheck did flop in Cleveland, but the players did not fit his system well so they did not produce. However, Cleveland's D-Line is a prime example of scheme making a difference. While they did not produce in Cleveland, they went to a different schemed defense in Denver and produced huge numbers. And the Patriots Deon Branch is another example of the scheme making a huge difference as well as David Givens. Both produced extremely well in New England, but when Givens went to Tennessee and Branch went to Seattle, their production went way down. Thus supporting my theory that you don't need all star talent, but rather players that fit the scheme. Puh-lease.

[Packnut]

Scheme

I don't believe any of these offseason player acquistion rumors. Makes for interesting conversation but rarely come to fruition.

IF it were true it would be great. Worrying about where he's going to play is missing the point. You're adding another Pro Bowl talent to your defense. You win with talent, not scheme. Thomas would make an impact and you want more of those type of players versus JAGs. The more blue chips you have, the better your chances to win.

Sounds simple but sometimes people get so bogged down in peripheral thoughts they can't see the forest through the trees.

You're right. If you put a bunch of all stars on a team, you could probably have Gary Coleman as the coach because scheme means absolutely nothing. You're speaking like a true madden player, scheme is the reason that the Patriots won 4 super bowls. If you look at their roster, they didn't have outstanding talent. Building a super star team has nothing to do with all star players. Sure it helps, but what a GM looks for is people that can fit their system the best and that are able to be the most productive in the scheme that they run. If you just go throw all your money on "all star" players that don't fit you system, you'll go bankrupt and never have a successful team.

You couldn't have misrepresented my post anymore if you had tried. But I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing with someone who thinks the Patriots "won 4 super bowls."

Tell Tom Brady, Richard Seymour, Tedy Bruschi, Rodney Harrison, Adam Vinatieri, Deon Branch, among others they're not talented. I doubt if Joey Harrington was QB they make a Super Bowl. Yeah, they have talent.

If you think scheme is the main thing that wins and you only need to plug in players that fit, then why did Belichick flop in Cleveland so badly? Surely his scheme and philosophies were similar back then. Maybe b/c he had an aging Bernie Kosar, Mike Tomczak and an erractic Vinny Testarverde as his starting QB's. In other words, talent. And at the most important position.

The NFL is a copycat league. If it's just the "Belichick scheme" it would be emulated and by theory it should be just as successful elsewhere.

No, the Patriots should be lauded as much for their player personnel moves and acquisitions as much as anything. But somehow that's always overlooked and a simple-minded "scheme" reason is asserted for such success. Puh-lease.

It's not just the scheme, it's having the players who FIT the scheme you run. To say BB ran the same schemes in Cleveland as he does now is not really true. Like any coach, he tinkers and makes changes. What the Pats do better than anyone else is get the most out of their players with-in the scheme that they run.

Look at Branch. He did'nt tear it up in Seattle did he? Look at Garcia. Put him in a non WC offense and the guy sucks. If schemes are not important like you claim, then why are there certain coaches who always seem to have success every year even when the players change?

Take the Philly defensive coordinator. He runs the best blitzing schemes the league has ever seen and he does it every year no matter who the players are.

[wist43]

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.

[prsnfoto]

Barnett is not a difference maker. I stand by that. I consider him and Poppinga very similar players as far as total talent. Barnett is stronger in teh pass, Poppinga is stronger in teh run and has shown alot of improvement in the pass. When it comes to paying for an impact player; I'd pay Thomas and let Barnett go becuase I think there is a big gap in the two as far as on field impact goes.

WOW......not a big impact player? You mean a negative impact player like Popinga? Barnett is a leader on the field, Popinga better against the run? When? After Barnett has the guy wrapped up and Popinga finally gets there?

WHAT TEAM WHERE YOU WATCHING??

Actually after his first two games Poops was solid, Barnett gave up the second most plays of over 20 yds after Manual,that is not a stat you want a LB in the lead,some of it can of course be attributed to the fact the Packers pretty much never played dime last year Dendy did OK and the coaches thought it better to leave Hawk and Barnett out rather than another CB. If they address this and Barnett is still sucking in coverage my grade of above average will be way too kind. You guys look at tackles way too much even I could probably get 8-10 tackles a game if KGB was in front of me, he is nothing but a blanket the runners have too shove aside to get to the next level, put Barnett or Hawk behind Kampman and their tackles are less than half what they get now.

[Zool]

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.

[PackerPro42]

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.

Yes, you need talent that fits your scheme, not all super stars will work in the Packers system. You need to find people with the right balance of talent and experience that fit your system perfectly. But it's not soley on talent. Like I said before, a super star team doesn't win championships, and that holds true to any sport. Just look at the U.S.A basketball team in the past olympics.

[esoxx]

I don't believe any of these offseason player acquistion rumors. Makes for interesting conversation but rarely come to fruition.

IF it were true it would be great. Worrying about where he's going to play is missing the point. You're adding another Pro Bowl talent to your defense. You win with talent, not scheme. Thomas would make an impact and you want more of those type of players versus JAGs. The more blue chips you have, the better your chances to win.

Sounds simple but sometimes people get so bogged down in peripheral thoughts they can't see the forest through the trees.

You're right. If you put a bunch of all stars on a team, you could probably have Gary Coleman as the coach because scheme means absolutely nothing. You're speaking like a true madden player, scheme is the reason that the Patriots won 4 super bowls. If you look at their roster, they didn't have outstanding talent. Building a super star team has nothing to do with all star players. Sure it helps, but what a GM looks for is people that can fit their system the best and that are able to be the most productive in the scheme that they run. If you just go throw all your money on "all star" players that don't fit you system, you'll go bankrupt and never have a successful team.

You couldn't have misrepresented my post anymore if you had tried. But I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing with someone who thinks the Patriots "won 4 super bowls."

Tell Tom Brady, Richard Seymour, Tedy Bruschi, Rodney Harrison, Adam Vinatieri, Deon Branch, among others they're not talented. I doubt if Joey Harrington was QB they make a Super Bowl. Yeah, they have talent.

If you think scheme is the main thing that wins and you only need to plug in players that fit, then why did Belichick flop in Cleveland so badly? Surely his scheme and philosophies were similar back then. Maybe b/c he had an aging Bernie Kosar, Mike Tomczak and an erractic Vinny Testarverde as his starting QB's. In other words, talent. And at the most important position.

The NFL is a copycat league. If it's just the "Belichick scheme" it would be emulated and by theory it should be just as successful elsewhere.

No, the Patriots should be lauded as much for their player personnel moves and acquisitions as much as anything. But somehow that's always overlooked and a simple-minded "scheme" reason is asserted for such success. Puh-lease.

Congratulations on contradicting what you were trying to support. As I stated before, the scheme and correct players make a successful team, not all star talent. Yes, Bellicheck did flop in Cleveland, but the players did not fit his system well so they did not produce. However, Cleveland's D-Line is a prime example of scheme making a difference. While they did not produce in Cleveland, they went to a different schemed defense in Denver and produced huge numbers. And the Patriots Deon Branch is another example of the scheme making a huge difference as well as David Givens. Both produced extremely well in New England, but when Givens went to Tennessee and Branch went to Seattle, their production went way down. Thus supporting my theory that you don't need all star talent, but rather players that fit the scheme. Puh-lease.

Congratulations on being mentally challenged. I contradicted nothing at all.

Oh so Belichick flopped in Cleveland b/c he just didn't have the "correct players"? How do you know the players didn't fit the scheme. Do you even know how many years he was at Cleveland? Judging by the vomit you just spewed you have no idea. He was there five seasons, and yet he couldn't find players to fit his scheme during that whole time. Ah, it must have been tough to do in the '90's.

But really, this is my favorite part of your ridiculous post:

"Yes, Bellicheck did flop in Cleveland, but the players did not fit his system well so they did not produce. However, Cleveland's D-Line is a prime example of scheme making a difference. While they did not produce in Cleveland, they went to a different schemed defense in Denver and produced huge numbers."

Hate to break it to you but those D-line players never played under Belichick in Cleveland. They only missed him by five or six years. Pretty close actually.

Oh, and how about those "huge numbers" those players put up in Denver. Can you cite them or are you just making things up? How about Gerad Warren? He's an improved player but in his entire career (five seasons) he only has 19.5 sacks and 169 tackles. I'm in awe of those huge numbers.

Should we compare Courtney Browns "huge numbers" with Denver next? You don't even want to know.

And I haven't played Madden since '96.

[esoxx]

You're right Zool. My initial post wasn't meant to stimulate an argument of this nature. But when someone misrepresents what you said so badly, you need to defend yourself too.

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

Now let's get back to discussing those four Super Bowls NE won.

Actually I'm done with this.

[PackerPro42]

I meant to type 3 super bowls in four years. But I posted that very quickly without reading it over. And I don't hate you because you don't like Marshawn Lynch, I was simply replying to what you posted. You 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." After reading that I don't believe I took your post out of context at all.

And as for the cleveland D-Line, I was not refering to the players that Bellicheck coached, I just posted them as an example because they were the first thing to come to mind after talking about cleveland.