Barnett Contract Extension Update

[CaptainKickass]

Just a minor detail here, but what if we give him a new, wonderful, big play based contract and he gets so wound up in trying to make the spectacular interception or forced fumble, that he blows tackling the guy with the ball? Doesn't it then become big play or blown coverage? And the times he does make the big play make him earn the escalators in the contract.

Good question Zig -

That's why the "threshold" becomes important. And yes - "tackles" should obviously be one of the categories.

It's not like he would only get paid for the big play - his contract and performance thus far have indeed warranted an extension. I'm just thinking creatively to get him to give us that extra bit that is the difference between good and great. And also to make the contract digestable and fair to all involved.

Last thing we need is for him to hit his payday and see his production taper off. We need to use ca$h to motivate him to become even better.

[Rastak]

Just a minor detail here, but what if we give him a new, wonderful, big play based contract and he gets so wound up in trying to make the spectacular interception or forced fumble, that he blows tackling the guy with the ball? Doesn't it then become big play or blown coverage? And the times he does make the big play make him earn the escalators in the contract.

That's what I was thinking. That doesn;t exactly promote team play.

[Tony Oday]

Best reason to resign him this year is it will cost more next year because the cap will go up again! Sign him 10 million up front show Barnett the love.

[MadtownPacker]

Watch out Capt, you are playing with a deadly individual!!

Barnett aint going anywhere. I have no doubt TT will get it handled. Barnett while not spectacular has always been solid IMO. Dont forget he had a different DC his first 3 or 4 seasons. Now he also has Hawk. Add another good LB and they are the strength of the defense.

[Patler]

How about as a starter - you run the average of the top 5 MLB's in each "big play" category for the entire NFL at his position for....oh I don't know.... let's say the previous 3 years.

Then - you design escalating bonuses for attaining that threshold and then of course bump it up for exceeding the threshold.

Lets say (pulling numbers out of my ass here) a 250k bonus for achieveing it and then - I actually kind of liked your target of 500k - for exceeding the highest of those previous 3 years. That way when he does make those "1 or 2 plays" that are exactly the difference between average and great, he can pocket an extra mil or 2 and not feel cheated. The Pack get's that extra 10% effort and hustle out of him that's been keeping him stuck with the label of "good" rather than "excellent".

You were the one who suggested an incentive plan should be in Barnett's contract, so why don't you propose one? Support your own idea. Quite frankly, I don't think it can work for a linebacker.

What in the heck is a "big play"? Who will decide? Are you going to go to arbitration and film reviews by a panel of "big play" experts? Is every interception a "big play"? Is every interception returned 95 yards for a TD a "big play"? Even if you are leading by 42 points?

[MadtownPacker]

Is every interception a "big play"? Is every interception returned 95 yards for a TD a "big play"? Even if you are leading by 42 points?

If it was darra sharper would be even richer!

[Patler]

Is every interception a "big play"? Is every interception returned 95 yards for a TD a "big play"? Even if you are leading by 42 points?

If it was darra sharper would be even richer!

[CaptainKickass]

There are 5 reasons why performance incentives will work:

A. pay bonus for achievements the player has yet to make

2. design the incentives in such a way so as to avoid the player feeling undervalued or that he has outperformed his new contract in the coming years after the new contract is signed.

D. motivate the individual to continue to progress so there is, at the very least, no drop off in performance due to the new contract and sizable bonus.

[wist43]

Just a minor detail here, but what if we give him a new, wonderful, big play based contract and he gets so wound up in trying to make the spectacular interception or forced fumble, that he blows tackling the guy with the ball? Doesn't it then become big play or blown coverage? And the times he does make the big play make him earn the escalators in the contract.

He'd never agree to incentives... he's simply not a big play LB, and never will be.

He's fast, he covers a lot of ground, and he makes a lot of tackles - he'll never be a sack guy, or a guy who is going to force fumbles. He plays the game small, he hits small, he's a drag down tackler - which contributes to his missed tackle totals - he's just not an impact guy - never will be.

[Patler]

There are 5 reasons why performance incentives will work:

A. pay bonus for achievements the player has yet to make

2. design the incentives in such a way so as to avoid the player feeling undervalued or that he has outperformed his new contract in the coming years after the new contract is signed.

D. motivate the individual to continue to progress so there is, at the very least, no drop off in performance due to the new contract and sizable bonus.

That's a very nice theory, but the practical application is difficult for Barnett's situation. By your theory, did neither Barnett nor Urlacher "earn" bonuses in 2006, or did they both "earn" bonuses? If one did but not the other, what criteria is it based on?

Apply your theory to the facts of 2006. I would like to know how you think it would have worked for those two players in 2006.

[Patler]

He's fast, he covers a lot of ground, and he makes a lot of tackles - he'll never be a sack guy, or a guy who is going to force fumbles. He plays the game small, he hits small, he's a drag down tackler - which contributes to his missed tackle totals - he's just not an impact guy - never will be.

I agree with that description completely. The peculiar thing to me about Barnett is that, with his speed and his quickness, he should be a better blitzer than he is. I've never figured out why he can't seem to get a feel for it.

My only thought is this: As a blitzing liinebacker, you have to accept that at times you might get crushed on a blitz pickup you don't see coming, or that hits you awkwardly even if you do see it coming. It takes more "wreckless abandon" than Barnett is willing to play with. He blitzes straight into a blocker, and stops. Probably not physical enough to be effective.

[CaptainKickass]

Stats calculated from: http://www.nfl.com/stats/playersort/...S/2005/regular

2006
LB INT's top 5 average = 4.2
LB Tackles top 5 average = 109 tackles
LB Forced Fumbles top 5 average = 4
LB Touchdowns top 5 average = .6
LB sacks top 5 average = 9.3
LB Fumble recoveries = 3

Barnett:

Int's = 1
Tackles = 138
Forced Fumbles = 1
Touchdowns = 0
Sacks = 1
Fumble recoveries = 3

So if the threshold = the top 5 average in any category - then Barnett would have met the threshold in 2 categories and exceeded it in one.

If the bonus for meeting the threshold in any category is $250k and lets say another $250k for exceeding the threshold in tackles (he actually ranked 3rd in that area) then Barnett would have earned himself an additional $750k on top of his base salary for last season if we applied it going forward.

Draw your own conclusions. That's what we are here for.

[Patler]

If I represent Barnett, I object to having mutually exclusive incentives (sacks and interceptions) If you expect him to cover (and get interceptions) he can't blitz and get sacks, and vice versa.

I would also object to an incentive of any significant amount for scoring one lousy touchdown. Also seems like a bad critera.

I previously indicated there was some sense in an incentive for tackles.

[Tony Oday]

Just give him the money. He outplayed his rookie contract and very serviceable in the middle and I think he will be much better as a OLB.

[MadtownPacker]

I think this would also be a huge negative on the team from a FA perspective. Barnett has taken alot of crap (critics, DJs, his club)and still played well. A lesser player might have caved.