Greenbay Packers Linebackers (1 Viewer)

[aDingoAteMyBaby]

I'm trying to understand what the Packers have in mind with their LB's going into this season. It looks like both OLB spots are in need of upgrade. You'd think that Nick Barnett is the rock in the middle, but I keep hearing internet rumblings about him moving from MLB to SLB if a MLB presents himself in FA or the draft.

This seems like a mistake to me though. Barnett has very solid and consistant numbers over his 3 years playing MLB:

Year Team G Total Tckl Ast Sacks Int Yds Avg Lg TD Pass Def

2003 Green Bay Packers 15 112 86.0 26 2 3 21 7.0 14 0 3

2004 Green Bay Packers 16 123 92.0 31 3 1 16 16.0 16 0 5

2005 Green Bay Packers 16 138 91.0 47 1 1 95 95.0 95 1 1

TOTAL 47 373 269.0 104 6 5 132 26.4 95 1 9

What would drive this team to move their best linebacker, and only consistant producer at that spot to the outside? Are the rumor just a joke, or is there good reason?

 

[Captain Blowhard]

They have Nick Barnett and...Nick Barnett.

 

[helix]

They have Nick Barnett and...Nick Barnett.

And he even is not very good.

 

[ratpfink]

I thought Barnett played WLB his rookie year.

 

[trader jake]

They have Nick Barnett and...Nick Barnett.

And he even is not very good.

actually he is. he's a great playmaker with little protection around him so to speak. look no further than brian urlacher's numbers two seasons ago when the DL stunk in front of himthe packers defensive line didn't take up blockers last season and nick was forced to take on too many blockers all season long. he has speed to burn and some say that this would be better utilized on the weak side where he could run down more plays and be active to chase the ball around all game (which is what he did last year, but you need that guy in the middle to be more a point of attack type in the 4-3)

if barnett stays in the middle he'll be fine. if barnett is moved outside he'll be fine. either way the packers will be playing with two new starters surrounding him next season...na'il diggs has already been told to take a hike. early rumblings suggested derek smith until he resigned with the 49ers. recent reports have the packers bringing in ben taylor for a look. of course they also sit with pick #5 and aj hawk of ohio state could fill a need as well

 

[CletiusMaximus]

What would drive this team to move their best linebacker, and only consistant producer at that spot to the outside? Are the rumor just a joke, or is there good reason?

Barnett is fast and a pretty good tackler, but not very strong at the point, doesn't shed blockers well and is not a big hitter or run stuffer that you like to see in the middle. Also, the Packers have pretty much no one to play the OLB positions right now. Therefore, many fans think he would do well on the outside, particularly with guys like Hawk being suggested as potential draft pick at #5 to play in the middle. However, I've never heard any Packers coach or management suggest they are considering moving Barnett, so that talk is no more than rumor and internet noise at this point.

 

[trader jake]

I thought Barnett played WLB his rookie year.

out of oregon state it was unknown what position he would play (mike or will LB) but he has played the middle his entire career

 

[cracKer]

From what I've seen he looks very good in coverage, and it's been speculated that he'd land on the strong side since he stepped foot into the NFL

 

[trout]

don't the Pack have plenty of cap room? Why wouldn't they bring in Lavar Arrington for at least a visit?

 

[Sabertooth]

Because he's a head case who doesn't play within the scheme. The Packers are concentrating on chemistry and he would appear to be a little bit more of a freelancer than they are looking for. Great talent, but expensive and not really a team player from what I've read.

 

[trout]

Because he's a head case who doesn't play within the scheme. The Packers are concentrating on chemistry and he would appear to be a little bit more of a freelancer than they are looking for. Great talent, but expensive and not really a team player from what I've read.

but, but, but.....he'd improve our LB position, right? Imagine if we had barnett, arrington, then draft hawk

 

[sho nuff]

Because he's a head case who doesn't play within the scheme. The Packers are concentrating on chemistry and he would appear to be a little bit more of a freelancer than they are looking for. Great talent, but expensive and not really a team player from what I've read.

but, but, but.....he'd improve our LB position, right? Imagine if we had barnett, arrington, then draft hawk

Does not always work to just sign guys with the big name.Check Arrington's last 2 seasons for a reason he has not signed anywhere.

Barnett could move outside as that is what I believe he played in college. Griesen has been getting some attention...but seems like he is getting more attention elsewhere.

I suspect the Packers will try to bring Diggs back and look to be setting up to draft Hawk.

 

[Aaronstory]

From what I've seen he looks very good in coverage, and it's been speculated that he'd land on the strong side since he stepped foot into the NFL

Ugh. He is terrible in coverage. He only looks 'good' compared to Lenon and Thomas...who are truly brutal to watch in coverage.

 

[onionsack]

...particularly with guys like Hawk being suggested as potential draft pick at #5 to play in the middle.

I've seen this claim now in several forums (the idea that Hawk is a middle linebacker). Exactly who is suggesting this? He hasn't played MLB since HS, and his game screams weakside LB, especially at the NFL level. Barnett's skill set is also more tailored to pursuit from the outside, rather than fighting through trash in the interior; In my opinion his stats belie his actual production in the middle, with far too many of his tackles coming 5 or more yards past the LOS. We do need to draft a LB from Ohio State. But it's not the two everybody keeps talking about, and it needn't be on the first day.

 

[Osaurus]

The Packers have historically had an awful D. This year will probably be no exception.

 

[sho nuff]

The Packers have historically had an awful D. This year will probably be no exception.

Historically? Or recently?Historically when they build the teams and have defense they are much better. 96 when they won the Super Bowl they had the #1 defense...and all around that year and a few others mixed in between they had top 10 defenses

 

[helix]

They have Nick Barnett and...Nick Barnett.

And he even is not very good.

actually he is. he's a great playmaker with little protection around him so to speak. look no further than brian urlacher's numbers two seasons ago when the DL stunk in front of himthe packers defensive line didn't take up blockers last season and nick was forced to take on too many blockers all season long. he has speed to burn and some say that this would be better utilized on the weak side where he could run down more plays and be active to chase the ball around all game (which is what he did last year, but you need that guy in the middle to be more a point of attack type in the 4-3)

if barnett stays in the middle he'll be fine. if barnett is moved outside he'll be fine. either way the packers will be playing with two new starters surrounding him next season...na'il diggs has already been told to take a hike. early rumblings suggested derek smith until he resigned with the 49ers. recent reports have the packers bringing in ben taylor for a look. of course they also sit with pick #5 and aj hawk of ohio state could fill a need as well

I disagree. Overrated and looks to be an average NFL LB. His numbers look good because the other LB's suck. The guy is no Brian Urlacher. Too many flaws in his game.

 

[Osaurus]

The Packers have historically had an awful D.  This year will probably be no exception.

Historically? Or recently?Historically when they build the teams and have defense they are much better. 96 when they won the Super Bowl they had the #1 defense...and all around that year and a few others mixed in between they had top 10 defenses

I will re-phrase: Recently the Packers have lacked a D. So for the past 10 years minus a couple the Packers have had an awful D.

 

[Aaronstory]

...particularly with guys like Hawk being suggested as potential draft pick at #5 to play in the middle.

I've seen this claim now in several forums (the idea that Hawk is a middle linebacker). Exactly who is suggesting this? He hasn't played MLB since HS, and his game screams weakside LB, especially at the NFL level. Barnett's skill set is also more tailored to pursuit from the outside, rather than fighting through trash in the interior; In my opinion his stats belie his actual production in the middle, with far too many of his tackles coming 5 or more yards past the LOS. We do need to draft a LB from Ohio State. But it's not the two everybody keeps talking about, and it needn't be on the first day.

A big, fat for you sir.

 

[sts911911]

They have Nick Barnett and...Nick Barnett.

And he even is not very good.

actually he is. he's a great playmaker with little protection around him so to speak. look no further than brian urlacher's numbers two seasons ago when the DL stunk in front of himthe packers defensive line didn't take up blockers last season and nick was forced to take on too many blockers all season long. he has speed to burn and some say that this would be better utilized on the weak side where he could run down more plays and be active to chase the ball around all game (which is what he did last year, but you need that guy in the middle to be more a point of attack type in the 4-3)

if barnett stays in the middle he'll be fine. if barnett is moved outside he'll be fine. either way the packers will be playing with two new starters surrounding him next season...na'il diggs has already been told to take a hike. early rumblings suggested derek smith until he resigned with the 49ers. recent reports have the packers bringing in ben taylor for a look. of course they also sit with pick #5 and aj hawk of ohio state could fill a need as well

I disagree. Overrated and looks to be an average NFL LB. His numbers look good because the other LB's suck. The guy is no Brian Urlacher. Too many flaws in his game.

Who said he was in the same ballpark as Urlacher?

 

[trader jake]

They have Nick Barnett and...Nick Barnett.

And he even is not very good.

actually he is. he's a great playmaker with little protection around him so to speak. look no further than brian urlacher's numbers two seasons ago when the DL stunk in front of himthe packers defensive line didn't take up blockers last season and nick was forced to take on too many blockers all season long. he has speed to burn and some say that this would be better utilized on the weak side where he could run down more plays and be active to chase the ball around all game (which is what he did last year, but you need that guy in the middle to be more a point of attack type in the 4-3)

if barnett stays in the middle he'll be fine. if barnett is moved outside he'll be fine. either way the packers will be playing with two new starters surrounding him next season...na'il diggs has already been told to take a hike. early rumblings suggested derek smith until he resigned with the 49ers. recent reports have the packers bringing in ben taylor for a look. of course they also sit with pick #5 and aj hawk of ohio state could fill a need as well

I disagree. Overrated and looks to be an average NFL LB. His numbers look good because the other LB's suck. The guy is no Brian Urlacher. Too many flaws in his game.

Who said he was in the same ballpark as Urlacher?

in one of my posts above i compared urlacher's situation two years ago to barnett's last year (bad DL play in front of them effecting their play), but i was not comparing the players themselvesurlacher is one of the top LB's in the game. barnett is in the tier below that (and apparently some would argue two tiers below)

imo, as the talent around barnett improves...so will the recognition he receives. barnett won't prove anyone wrong unless the packers become winners again :(

 

[CletiusMaximus]

...particularly with guys like Hawk being suggested as potential draft pick at #5 to play in the middle.

I've seen this claim now in several forums (the idea that Hawk is a middle linebacker). Exactly who is suggesting this? He hasn't played MLB since HS, and his game screams weakside LB, especially at the NFL level.

I don't disagree with you, but everything I read refers to Hawk as a middle linebacker. Check out Dan Pompei's article in today's TSN, a Hawk v. Mario Williams analysis for the Packers 5th pick:The Packers can't go wrong, right?

excerpt:

I ask myself this question: Is it easier to neutralize a great end or a great middle linebacker? You can double-team a great end and control him most of the time if you are determined to do so. It's more difficult to account for a linebacker in the middle of the field.

I figure you can create a pass rush. The Steelers and Seahawks are proof of that. You can't create a physical force in the middle of the field who gives your defense identity.

I think about the great inside linebackers. **** Butkus. Jack Lambert. Ray Nitschke. Ray Lewis. Mike Singletary. Bill George. Joe Schmidt. Sam Huff. Nick Buoniconti. Harry Carson. What do they have in common? Well, with the exception of Butkus, they've all won championships. It seems like great middle linebackers have that effect on teams.

I make up my mind. Hawk is my guy.

 

[Kleck.]

The Packers can't go wrong, right?

Great read! "It's the values of the positions that hang me up."

This is where I get hung up at times too and have really thought about it a lot this past week. I'm a big believer in building the lines first (both sides) and going from there. I also think Mario has an upside like we have not seen in a defensive player for years. But I also see a potential downside with his lack of consistency. Almost everything I believe tells me to take the chance on Mario at #5.

But... I think Pompei really nailed it when he discussed the importance of a MLB and the benefits they can bring to a defense. I have always looked at that, but it's the leadership and the importance of the “un-measurables” I sometimes forget about when comparing two players. Just having that solid leadership the defense has been missing for years alone makes me salivate over Hawk. I also don't see the downside in Hawk that I see in Mario, and although Hawk might not have the freak like upside, I see an all-around solid player that brings a lot more of those leadership traits to the team. I don't think they can go wrong with Hawk, it's the safer pick and right now this Packer team needs that.

As for Hawk playing MLB, I'd be shocked if Green Bay took him and didn't play him there.