Barnett Contract Extension Update

[pbmax]

Perhaps I am missing something, but by my count Barnett has met ONE criteria (fumble recoveries) and exceeded ONE other (tackles).

My signature used to say Pay the All-Pros, replace the rest. Barnett fills the role of the Mike in this defense in the minimum way possible. He has the speed to cover his responsibilities and make the tackles. That's it.

He is competent in coverage. He is not a big run stuffer, nor does he diagnose quickly.

I hope for a Kampman contract, one that looks like a possible monster until you measure it against the rest a year later. And then, like Kampman, I hope he outperforms it. But we shouldn't break the bank.

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.

[OKC PackerFan]

KFFL

Packers | Contract discussion regarding Barnett heating up
Sat, 7 Apr 2007 07:36:12 -0700

Tom Silverstein, of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, reports talks between the Green Bay Packers and LB Nick Barnett's agent, Chuck Price, have heated up recently. "We're having conversations. It's too early to tell whether he'll have a new deal or he'll be a free agent next year. We'll see where it goes," Price said. Barnett would like a new contract, but he is attending the team's offseason conditioning program. "I believe there has been positive progress. But until we get closer to the ballpark for both of us, then I'll start getting happy. But I'm happy with the progress. I'm not trying to force their hand and they're not trying to force mine. It's been a good process; it's just I would like it to be done," Barnett said.

[Merlin]

1) 4 Different defensive coordinators in 4 years.
2) Played LB only 1 year in college after playing safety.
3) Lead the team in tackles 3 out of 4 years.
4) 2006 was the first season where the LB's around him didn't change every game.
5) Is arguably the best cover MLB in the nfl.
6) City of Green Bay has been less then receptive to his business ventures.
7) Missed only 2 games in 4 years.
8) Has not had a good defensive line in front of him yet.

I would say that for everything those that think he is average, there are far more things that prove he is above average. Take MLB Urlacher as the example. Urlacher get's dragged around on tackles, he wiffs on tackles, he over pursues, he get's eaten up by the OL. He is a better LB how? I'll tell you how, the media focused in on him because the Bears had NO ONE when he came to town. The same could be said for AJ Hawk. The media focused so much attention on him that when he makes a play he's the best damn LB in the league, when he wiffs one, they don't say anything (ala Urlacher). Barnett has made a lot of good plays, far more then he has wiffed. The media doesn't say a thing either way because he is a no name. Fans being human, focus on the negative and don't see the forest between the trees. When AJ Hawk signed with us a majority of the fans thought he was the second coming. He did a great job, however he wouldn't have been able to do a great job if someone else wasn't there, Nick Barnett. In the one game Barnett missed, I believe we gave up over 200 yards rushing. AJ Hawk was playing, it wasn't all on Hodge. Barnett pursues to the play as well as any LB in the game. In fact, he over pursued less this season than Urlacher did for the Bears. The biggest downfall on Barnett was his over pursuit, he had bad angles and yeah, he wiffed some. Gee, AJ Hawk did the same thing. I am not saying AJ Hawk sucks but put things in perspective. Quit looking at the handful of plays the guy gave up and start looking at his positive contributions to the team. And for God's sake, quit listening to what the media says about most players. They have their favorites too.

[oregonpackfan]

Excellent points, Merlin!

I have grown very weary over the years of the negative comments given to Barnett by detractors over the past 4 years.

Barnett has become the convenient "Whipping Boy" for those finding fault with the Packers' defense. In fact, he has been the most productive and dependable Packer defender, save Al Harris, during that 4 year stretch.

Barnett detractors also need to remember that this 4 year veteran is still only 25 years old. He is just coming into his physical prime. With more experience and better players around him, I see Barnett's quality of play improving.

[Patler]

1) 4 Different defensive coordinators in 4 years.
2) Played LB only 1 year in college after playing safety.
3) Lead the team in tackles 3 out of 4 years.
4) 2006 was the first season where the LB's around him didn't change every game.
5) Is arguably the best cover MLB in the nfl.
6) City of Green Bay has been less then receptive to his business ventures.
7) Missed only 2 games in 4 years.
8) Has not had a good defensive line in front of him yet.

I will have to argue with several of your points. If I am wrong, I would like to know where your information comes from, as I'm always looking for new sources!

Re:2) above - According to his bio, as a freshman in college he started in preseason as a linebacker, was moved to safety and played. As a sophmore he moved back to linebacker, and became a starter. Was a preseason pick for the Butkus award going into his Senior year, so I assume he played as a linbacker as a Junior to even be on the Butkus award radar. It looks like he played 3 years as a linebacker.

Re:4) above - Diggs and Navies each started all 16 games in 2003, per the NFL. In 2004, Diggs started 14 and Navies started 15. Lenon started the 3 games that Diggs and Navies missed. 2005 was the only season in which the starters around him changed a lot.

Re:5) above - I think Barnett is a good cover linebacker, but I'm not sure you can support a statement that he is "arguably the best".

Re:8) above - Maybe not the best, but certainly not the worst D-lines in front of him. Playing behind Grady Jackson and Ryan Pickett would make most mlbs pretty happy. Both will tie up a couple blcokers to let the mlb free to pursue.

[oregonpackfan]

Patler,

Re 2). I am not sure how many years Barnett played safety or linebacker at Oregon State.

I am sure, however, is that when he played linebacker, Barnett always played OUTSIDE linebacker. He NEVER played middle linebacker at OSU.

So what did the Packers do? They took a guy who never played middle linebacker in college and expected him to start at middle linebacker in the pros as a rookie.

The MLB position is probably the most challening defensive position in pro football. To take a rookie with no experience and expect him to start and excell at MLB is a sign the Packers were weak at the linebacker position, in general.

That he has performed well in the pros under 4 different Defense Coordinators in 4 years is a sign of his adaptability. This is another reason why TT needs to make re-signing Barnett a top priority, IMO.

[Patler]

Patler,

Re 2). I am not sure how many years Barnett played safety or linebacker at Oregon State.

I am sure, however, is that when he played linebacker, Barnett always played OUTSIDE linebacker. He NEVER played middle linebacker at OSU.

So what did the Packers do? They took a guy who never played middle linebacker in college and expected him to start at middle linebacker in the pros as a rookie.

The MLB position is probably the most challening defensive position in pro football. To take a rookie with no experience and expect him to start and excell at MLB is a sign the Packers were weak at the linebacker position, in general.

That he has performed well in the pros under 4 different Defense Coordinators in 4 years is a sign of his adaptability. This is another reason why TT needs to make re-signing Barnett a top priority, IMO.

I don't disagree with most of that. I have argued time and again that having a different DC each year has probably stunted his development as a pro. Moving from the outside to the inside certainly requires an adjustment, but I think a lot of outside linebackers would relish it, and I don't think it takes a pro years to adapt to it. Pro teams move players all the time, to put them where they are best suited for the professional game. Barnett did fine with the move.

I'm not a Barnett basher by any stretch of the imagination

[oregonpackfan]

Patler,

I have never accused you of being a "Barnett Basher."

There are others, both on this forum and other forums, who continually disparage Barnett's contributions to the team. I grow weary of them.

[Bretsky]

We have to keep Barnett; he's an above average MLB and I think he'd be an above average OLB as well.

[b bulldog]

I think he wlould be a better WLB than a MLB. I actually think Hawk and Barnett could switch positions and they both would benfit from it.

[Bretsky]

I think he wlould be a better WLB than a MLB. I actually think Hawk and Barnett could switch positions and they both would benfit from it.

I think Hawk and Barnett are the keepers; if a great LB falls to TT I'd be for him selecting if he's the best player available

[b bulldog]

I think AJ's physicality,speed and instinct would better suit the team in the middle and Nick's speed and coverage abilites would be better suited to the weak side.

[Merlin]

Patler,

I didn't look it up. I seem to remember the big knock on him that the "analysts" said is that he was a converted safety and that he only played one full season as a linebacker. I know that he didn't play LB every year in college, outside of that you may be right, either way, he is playing out of position.

I don't remember Diggs playing more then 1 full season in the last three he was with us. He was oft injured. Navies only started one season. The NFL can list "starts" but that's a far cry from finishing. Lenon got more playing time then "3 games". I seem to remember him in at least every other game. Then you have a few others mixed in there as well with yes, 2005 being a joke. But he really did not have the same people around him for the duration of a season like he did in 2006, and those were both rookies for the most part. He is arguably the best cover LB in the league, otherwise you would agree with me ! Also, it isn't just "one guy" that makes the line good. Although Jackson and Pickett occupy space, it wasn't until late last season when Barnett had a broken hand that I finally thought we have a good DL in the four years he has been with us. When you rush 4 guys on 5 OL and sometimes a TE and only 1 is getting a double team, that leaves 4-5 guys to block 3. Not what I would exactly call a hearty DL. I fully expect this season to be way different. I think you will see teams trying to double up on Jenkins and Kampman more and Picket and whoever else gets the start each opening big holes for the LB's to take advantage of.

[Patler]

Patler,

I don't remember Diggs playing more then 1 full season in the last three he was with us. He was oft injured. Navies only started one season. The NFL can list "starts" but that's a far cry from finishing. Lenon got more playing time then "3 games". I seem to remember him in at least every other game. Then you have a few others mixed in there as well with yes, 2005 being a joke. But he really did not have the same people around him for the duration of a season like he did in 2006, and those were both rookies for the most part. He is arguably the best cover LB in the league, otherwise you would agree with me ! Also, it isn't just "one guy" that makes the line good. Although Jackson and Pickett occupy space, it wasn't until late last season when Barnett had a broken hand that I finally thought we have a good DL in the four years he has been with us. When you rush 4 guys on 5 OL and sometimes a TE and only 1 is getting a double team, that leaves 4-5 guys to block 3. Not what I would exactly call a hearty DL. I fully expect this season to be way different. I think you will see teams trying to double up on Jenkins and Kampman more and Picket and whoever else gets the start each opening big holes for the LB's to take advantage of.

Now you're just seem to be making things up.
Barnett, Diggs and Navies were 1,2 and 3 in tackles for GB in 2003.
Barnett and Diggs were 1 and 2 in 2004, followed by Roman, Sharper Kampman and Navies.
Diggs was dinged up a number of years, but always played. That was his big complaint in 2005, that they didn't give him a chance to play. As he said, he always played in the past, even when nicked up. Lenon played some but not a lot until 2005. Navies and Diggs started and finished the games, for the most part.

"Arguably the best cover linebacker"? Based on what? Certainly not interceptions or passes defensed.

DTs are the most responsible for keeping the middle linbacker clean, and Jackson and Picket were very good at it. I'm not suggesting the Packer line has been great, but it hasn't been awful either.

[the_idle_threat]

The key word is "arguably."

Arguably, you are the best cover linebacker in the NFL, Patler.