Barnett Contract Extension Update

[falco]

Up until the last season Diggs rarely missed playing time.

He's one player I wish TT would have kept.

[Patler]

The key word is "arguably."

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

Good point!

[Bretsky]

Up until the last season Diggs rarely missed playing time.

He's one player I wish TT would have kept.

I agree; always liked Diggs. Never a superstar, but he was a gamer.

[The Shadow]

It would be intriguing to add Paul Posluzny to the mix.

[Bretsky]

It would be intriguing to add Paul Posluzny to the mix.

Yes, he really seems like a gamer. I'm still not at all convinced Poppinga is starting material

[KYPack]

Well, well.

A balanced thread on Barnett, that's a change.

Say what you will about Nick, the guy is a lightning rod for controversy.

I'd basically agree with that calm, voice of reason, MTP!

Barnett has been a good player and will continue to improve. He is already one of the best Mikes in cover, he has shown that he can learn and grow. Let's sign his ass in the interest of continuity.

That LB bunch should be one of the better LB groupings in the league as long as we get some better play out of the SAM. Hawk is a baby superstar and these guys can give us great pass coverage, let's stick with 'em.

[BallHawk]

It would be intriguing to add Paul Posluzny to the mix.

Yes, he really seems like a gamer. I'm still not at all convinced Poppinga is starting material

What do you think of Posluzny compared to Patrick Willis?

[Bretsky]

It would be intriguing to add Paul Posluzny to the mix.

Yes, he really seems like a gamer. I'm still not at all convinced Poppinga is starting material

What do you think of Posluzny compared to Patrick Willis?

I like both, but I just think Patrick Willis is a step ahead of him talent wise. PP could be a very solid player; Willis has the ability if he grows to be a star.

[Merlin]

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.

Making things up, I don't think so. Have you actually looked at the time they spent on the field? Or are you just parroting numbers from nfl.com? Did you watch the games? I am starting to think you didn't. Let me use the same argument that so many of you use against Barnett, stats don't mean anything. In fact, you can argue that Diggs, Navies and Lenon sucked based on the very same logic used to bash Barnett. You can even argue that they all left games injured and didn't return for a game or two.

Face it, Barnett has not had the same players around him for more than one season (2006) his entire career. For you to argue otherwise is ridiculous.

Someday fans will realize that just because someone doesn't lead the world in passes defended or ints that it makes them a nobody (Al Harris anyone?) or a player who can't do the job. When teams don't throw to the player you are covering it makes it kind of hard to get the stats. You of all people can't be that naive. I also wasn't aware that we had Jackson and Picket plugging up the middle at the same time. When only one defensive lineman is plugging the middle, there are 3 more players on the line. The Bears? They only have one good DT right? And Urlacher? He has more passes defended than anyone else in the history of the game? More sacks? More Ints? More Tackles? So much for your stats and theories...

[Merlin]

It would be intriguing to add Paul Posluzny to the mix.

I am not "sold" on him because he isn't very big @ 6'1 238#. Popinga is our biggest LB @ 6'3 245# and Brady doesn't look that big on the field. Even though he has the same size as Barnett, Hodge and Hawk, he doesn't look that big on the field. The things I do like about him thought is that he has good leadership qualities and a big heart. Those players usually do very well in the NFL regardless of size. The only other question is, who does he replace?

[Zool]

I've watched LB's and specifically Barnett play the last couple seasons. If a RB releases to the TE side against the Packers, he will be open. While Barnett has the speed to close and make the tackle, its always a few yards down field. I guess you could argue that anyone in the NFL is the best cover LB, I wouldnt argue in favor of Barnett.

[Patler]

Merlin;

I have watched or listened to almost all the Packer games live or taped since the mid-1960s.

You seem to be suggesting that I am a Barnett basher. If you have read my posts about Barnett over the past couple years, I have been a strong supporter of his importance to the team. However, that does not mean that I will automatically agree with what I think are statements that are flat out wrong, as I believe several of yours are.

Heck, I went through and detailed the location of every Barnett tackle through the first 3/4 of the 2005 season, did the same for Urlacher, (relative to the distance from the line of scrimmage) just to refute the arguments that most of his tackles were 5-10 yards down field, as some have argued.

I like Barnett a lot, espcially compared to what GB has had at times in the past. BUT, to call him arguably the best cover linebacker in the NFL I think is going overboard.

[Merlin]

I never said you weren't a Barnett fan Patler. The point was that statistics seldom if ever show how good or bad a player is. If Manning can win the Super Bowl MVP with his horrible performance against the Bears and his stats were used, that probably would have made the point better.

As far as being "wrong", I am not "wrong" just like you aren't "wrong". It's a matter of opinion. I watch the games and I know what I see. You use the stats to back yourself up. Nothing wrong with either analysis. To say I am "making things up" and that I "am wrong" because it doesn't jive with your numbers isn't right either.

Many games linebackers left because of injury not to return that game. They may have been back the next week and in the stats, you see them listed as starting two games. To me, that is a false stat for comparison to see who Barnett has lined up with consistently over his career. 2006 was the first season that he had the same LB's and defense as a whole around him his entire career.

I also think you are missing the keyword "arguably". That is based on my opinion. I didn't say he was the best. You are entitled to your opinion as am I.

[Patler]

I also think you are missing the keyword "arguably". That is based on my opinion. I didn't say he was the best. You are entitled to your opinion as am I.

Of course, but I am also entitled to believe that your opinion and/or statements are "wrong"!

[Partial]

I am steering clear of Merlin on this, but I do think Barnett is in the top 24 of the 32 MLB. When you break his game down, I would say his skills that seperate him from being a back-up are his acceleration and speed, and his coverage abilities.

I'd probably rate him right around 12 or so, because there are several players i'd rather have over him.

What makes Urlacher a superstar rather than a back-up is his speed(probably not quite as fast as Barnett anymore, but he was equally fast in his prime), his instincts for picking the right hole (a massive step above barnett, he has HOF instincts), his coverage ability (he is better in coverage than Barnett, especially in a zone), his size(6'4", 265), etc.

Urlacher is the type of rare athlete that seems to have it all ala Vernon Davis or Mario Williams in terms of sheer talent. He was very fortunate to have a good work ethic and head on his shoulders to propell him to elite status.

Barnett will forever be known as a good packer and a solid starter. Urlacher will have his bust bronzed in Canton.

I also 100% agree with Bulldog that plugging Hawk into the middle, and moving Barnett to the weak-side would maximize both their strengths and minimize both their weaknesses.