Barnett Contract Extension Update

[wist43]

There's no comparison between Barnett and Hawk...

Hawk show's all the signs of being a quality, high end LB - Barnett is fast and durable, but he also has a lot of warts.

Hawk is a much a better player than Barnett.

[Merlin]

We hashed this out last year.

All things being equal, Hawk will always be better than Barnett to a lot of people and the reasons have nothing to do with how they play.

[wist43]

We hashed this out last year.

All things being equal, Hawk will always be better than Barnett to a lot of people and the reasons have nothing to do with how they play.

I'm not a "Hawk lover"... I think he's a good player, which is why I gave up opposition to his being drafted at #5. All along, I never considered Hawk to be a top 5 pick, but also figured he'd be a decent player, and wouldn't be a bust.

That said, he's a pure football player... whereas I see Barnett as an athlete trying to play football.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

5 mil a year is not a lot, if we were to sign any MLB in free agnecy of equal talent to Barnett we would had to pay just as much if not more. I think Barnett a good player and am very glad we signed him.

[woodbuck27]

BARNETT AGREES TO TERMS ON EXTENSION

The Green Bay Packers have agreed to terms with Nick Barnett on a long-term extension. The 25-year-old middle linebacker still had one year left on his rookie deal, but the two sides have been working on a new contract for months. Barnett has started 62 of 64 games since being drafted in the first round out of Oregon State in 2003. While no terms have been released, the extension is expected to be worth at least $5.5 million a year and include over $11 million in guaranteed money.

Good ! Now that is out of the way.

I'm glad that TT got this done so we'er not praying for Nick Barnett's replacement, yet the official stance is that Ted is happy with what we already have.

[LL2]

BARNETT AGREES TO TERMS ON EXTENSION

The Green Bay Packers have agreed to terms with Nick Barnett on a long-term extension. The 25-year-old middle linebacker still had one year left on his rookie deal, but the two sides have been working on a new contract for months. Barnett has started 62 of 64 games since being drafted in the first round out of Oregon State in 2003. While no terms have been released, the extension is expected to be worth at least $5.5 million a year and include over $11 million in guaranteed money.

It's about time TT made some news. This is a great move as Barnett would've got a HUGE deal next year. He might've left some money on the table. It's great for the Pack and 5.5 is not a ton of moola.

[Partial]

Barnett really got hosed, but I bet a good chunk is guaranteed. Personally, Adalius Thomas really screwed over a lot of linebackers looking to bank in because he took such a low salary w/ high guarantees and to play on a good team on the east coast as opposed to going for about 9 mil per year somewhere.

I am actually quite surprised. Good thing Chicago is cheap with Briggs too. That also helped us lock him up cheaper.

Next up is Corey Williams. Get him locked up for 4 years as well!

[HarveyWallbangers]

Neither Barnett nor Hawk are in Urlacher's class. Neither very likely never will be. That being said, I think Hawk can rise to a Pro Bowl level--on par with a Lance Briggs or the Denver LBs. If they had a third LB as good as Hawk and Barnett, they could challenge for the best LB corps in the league.

Vilma didn't fit the Jets new scheme, and he was exposed a little bit. Rumors are that the Jets are looking to trade him.

[Partial]

Neither Barnett nor Hawk are in Urlacher's class. Neither very likely never will be. That being said, I think Hawk can rise to a Pro Bowl level--on par with a Lance Briggs or the Denver LBs. If they had a third LB as good as Hawk and Barnett, they could challenge for the best LB corps in the league.

Vilma didn't fit the Jets new scheme, and he was exposed a little bit. Rumors are that the Jets are looking to trade him.

Barnett for Vilma straight up if they'll take it (which there is no way they would). He's younger, faster, and nastier.

[oregonpackfan]

I'm SOOOOOOO glad to see that TT got this done! One less thing to worry about going into the season.

Kudos to Barnett on how he handled the situation as well. I think this sets a great example on how to be rewarded with a nice paycheck.

Very well put, GBRulz! I agree with you on both points.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Barnett for Vilma straight up if they'll take it (which there is no way they would). He's younger, faster, and nastier.

I don't think they are all that dissimilar.

Vilma is 6'1" 230. He's averaged 129 tackles, 1 sack, 1.7 interceptions, 2.7 fumbles, and 3.7 pass deflections per year. He's played in two different schemes in his 3 years.

Barnett is 6'2" 232. He's averaged 120 tackles, 2 sacks, 1.8 interceptions, 1.8 fumbles, and 4 pass deflections per year. He's played in three different schemes in his 4 years. Considering Barnett has missed 2 games in his 4 years and Vilma hasn't missed any (they are both durable), their stats (e.g. tackles) are nearly identical.

[b bulldog]

Stats can be misleading. Vilma is thought to be one of the best young LB's in the game. I'd take him over 56.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Stats can be misleading. Vilma is thought to be one of the best young LB's in the game. I'd take him over 56.

As I've stated before, he had a down year. You hear the name and the reputation, and think he's mint. He wasn't this year. I imagine many outside of Green Bay hear Barnett's name and think more highly of people really close to the team. I don't think there's a huge difference between them--although I'd take Vilma if I had to choose. I just think he's probably overrated at this point compared to how he played last year.

From ESPN's Insider (scouting reports sound similar: fast, good motor, good coverage skills, small and need to be protected, overagressive):

Jonathan Vilma
6-1 230
2004 Round 1
Grade: 79

Comment:
Vilma is an athletic, instinctive playmaker. He has an excellent motor and always seems to be around the ball. He is a fast-flow linebacker who has great range and is an explosive hitter. He can slide laterally, avoid and get over trash with good speed to the perimeter. He has some functional strength. He has active hands and can get over the top and free himself from blocks. He gets good depth on his drops and plays with good awareness in zone coverage. He has good closing speed on underneath throws. He has good balance, body control and change-of-direction skills in space. He can match up in underneath man-to-man situations. He has a knack for anticipating and timing up zone blitzes. But Vilma is undersized (especially in the 3-4) and needs to be protected inside the box. He gets driven out of run lanes when he squares up to take on blockers. He can be engulfed by big guards. He can be overaggressive. He takes some poor downhill angles and overruns his gap responsibility.

Nick Barnett
6-2 232
2003 Round 1
Grade: 74

Comment:
Barnett has very good speed, athleticism and explosiveness. He has elite change-of-direction and lateral-movement skills. He can run and cover ground quickly sideline to sideline. He has an excellent motor, gets great jumps on the ball and chases down many plays away from him. He has excellent recognition skills and can slip blocks and make plays. He seems to have a great feel for where the play is headed. He uses his hands very well and protects his body to get around blocks. He is a strong tackler within the box and out in space. He makes most of his big plays laterally or at an angle. But Barnett has only decent size and isn't an effective take-on player. He can be engulfed by linemen when he gets into short-area fistfights. He tends to struggle when he isn't on the move. He overruns some plays to avoid contact and get better angles, occasionally opening a hole in the defense.

[b bulldog]

When I watch the two play, Vilma sticks out and makes plays. Nick doesn't seem to do so.

[HarveyWallbangers]

When I watch the two play, Vilma sticks out and makes plays. Nick doesn't seem to do so.

Maybe you watched his good games. Statistics show these two are virtually identical in every "big play" category. Could Vilma be making all of his tackles at the line of scrimmage or something like that? Possibly, but doubtful since the Jets were pathetic against the run the last two years. Way worse than Green Bay in rushing yards/game and yards/rush in each of the last two seasons.