Desmond Bishop/AJ Hawk vs Nick Barnett/Brandon Chillar

quote:

Originally posted by BrainDed:
I'm in favor of letting both Hawk and Nick B walk. That money could be spent on signing a high draft OLB and / or Jenkins who will command big money as he is one of the best 3-4 ends in the game IMO.

If you have a line of Jenkins, Raji, Jolly, Picket and Neal, you can afford to save some money at the ILB spot.

Hawk is steady, but not worth the money, even if he takes a cut. Nick is getting old and becoming injury prone. Time to move on.

Does anyone think that Jolly is going to come back? I can't see it...

Hawk's definitely worth 3-5 Million/year, IMO. Your banking on Neal, but we have no idea what will happen, next year, will literally be his first year. I agree with Jenkins, and he needs to be paid, but NO on getting rid of both Hawk and Barnett.

There's no reason not to bring Jolly back with a very short leash. I'm all in favor of keeping Hawk, simply because we know what we have. The question is whether he's willing to take the massive pay cut required or if there's a way to structure a contract that sufficiently allows him to save face in the deal.

I'll take Jolly back with open arms. And yes, with the understanding that you don't have any leash. One phuckup and you're done here. Time to be a model citizen and earn millions of dollars, son. You can drink all the drank you want when you're retired from the NFL.

quote:

Does anyone think that Jolly is going to come back? I can't see it...

I just read a few days ago that he will be back at the price tag they tendered him at to start this year.

I just don't see how TT brings Jolly back. He's been suspended this year by the NFL for personal conduct, correct? Can he be suspended again, does it have anything to do with his plea deal? Wasn't he an RFA?

He WAS a stud, but who knows what he is NOW.

quote:

Originally posted by TD:
Same could be said for Jenkins, no? Considering Cullen has missed as much time and is 4 months older, how can you make the argument for someone that is going to possibly get 7 million a year? The Packers have a lot of depth on the DL with Jolly back. No sense to overpay a 3-4 end when you can collect the 3rd round pick.

The difference is my view that Jenkins is a special player. A true difference maker, while Nick is just a guy.


He missed 4 games this year and has 7 sacks and a ton of pressures. Yeah, he has had some naggin injury issues, but I think he was only IR'd in 08. yes?

Fair point though.

Russ -

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/112443724.html

" Still obligated
Defensive end Johnny Jolly's contract has been tolled during his suspension, according to an NFL source.

Thus, if Jolly is reinstated after the Super Bowl, he would remain Green Bay's property under terms of the one-year, $2.521 million tender that he signed June 15."

Barnett has missed 20 games while Jenkins has missed 21 counting this full year. So if Jenkins plays this weekend, they will have missed the same total number of games. Yes? So in essence your claim for Barnett being injured, is the same as Jenkins.

quote:

Problem is age and injury history.

This is your post. No? jenkins is older and missed more games?

Jenkins is a nice player not special. And before this season, he's never had any sort of consistent production. Do you really pay a guy that has never put up 7-8 million dollar stats?

quote:

Jenkins is a nice player not special.

He's a bit more than nice. I believe it was the queens that said they were happy not to face him - they consider him a disrupter. I love him when he's on the field but he has the injury history. He's worth +/- $5mil a season or so I'd say.

Jenkins is the type of guy that some team will massively overpay if he gets to UFA. He's also the type of UFA that TT would not sign if he had been playing for another team for that reason. I'd like to have him back, but not at an exorbitant number. His will be a very interesting situation to watch.

I do.. Thats just my view on him. Like I said, fair point on the injury front, I just see his injuries as less impactfull than the ones Barnett has suffered. To top it off, I have been on the Bishop band wagon for a long time so that might taint my view of Barnett.

Also, Jenkins has the "Packer People" character we like to talk about. He is the locker room jokester and very respected by his peers. On the other hand, you have Nick who likes to get sloppy drunk and beat women Ok. I am exaggerating for effect now.

quote:

Jenkins is the type of guy that some team will massively overpay if he gets to UFA. He's also the type of UFA that TT would not sign if he had been playing for another team for that reason. I'd like to have him back, but not at an exorbitant number. His will be a very interesting situation to watch.

Exactly what I was about to post. Wilson and Neal still have a lot of potential I think and it would be a shame to hinder their progress. I'd say resign Jenkins OR Barnett, but not both unless they get a really big discount.

quote:

Originally posted by BTP:

Ruh Roh Bishop in coverage.

Again, not in coverage as much. You can't eliminate a guy from coverage completely. Heck, Mathews has to cover some too. Bishop simply can't drop like Barnett or Chillar. You show two plays from one game, that is not an overall picture. Also, Bishop is underneath in all the plays, which Barnett and Chillar aren't limited to. That gives Capers more versatility and Collins (and the other safety, be it Bigby, Burnett, etc.) a chance to make plays and disguise more coverages.

Capers played Barnett and Chillar for a reason. He's a great d-coordinator and chose those guys to play.

I think Bishop and Hawk have more INT's than Barnett or Chillar ever had as a Packer.

quote:

Originally posted by BrainDed:
Russ -
Thus, if Jolly is reinstated after the Super Bowl, he would remain Green Bay's property under terms of the one-year, $2.521 million tender that he signed June 15."

Interesting. We might be obligated, but I wonder it TT won't actively try and shop him.

quote:

Originally posted by CJS:
If both are re-signed, I'd let Barnett drop some weight and throw him outside to see if he can play opposite of Matthews. If he can't hack it, then see what you can get in a trade or release him because I doubt he'd take a back-up role.

Drop weight? The issue Barnett runs in to is that he's light for an ILB. As a rush 'backer he'd be rather small. Bishop would likely be a better candidate for the spot opposite Mathews from a size standpoint.

quote:

Originally posted by Herschel:

quote:

Originally posted by BTP:

Ruh Roh Bishop in coverage.

Again, not in coverage as much.

Why just because you say so? LOL!

Again, 100% incorrect. As much as of exactly what,Barnett? if so,you're wrong on that one. Chillar? You'd be wrong on that one as well.


Bishop has been playing both base and nickle packages. He's in coverage more then you think AND playing very well in it. Obviously you haven't been either a)watching the games closely when he's on the field or b)have no idea exactly how a 3-4 defense works. Especially when they break out in zone coverage(s).

quote:

Originally posted by BrainDed:
Hawk is steady, but not worth the money, even if he takes a cut.

This is just plain silly.

AJ Hawk is far younger then Barnett and has proven to be FAR more healthy then ANY of these LB's mentioned.

He's racked up 100+ tackles, 3 INT's (including a game changer against TOG and the Queens), and 2-3 FF's. He's healthy. He's here day in and day out and to not even consider him with a pay cut is just stupid.

Is AJ Hawk who they thought'd be as the 5th overall pick? I think we can all agree that's a no. But in this defense and under this scheme of Capers he doesn't need to be. He's done far better then I thought he would after Chillar went down and he's having perhaps his most physical year since coming here.

Both he and Bishop almost seem to be playing with a chip on their shoulders.

At the right price, it would be ludicrous not to bring him back.

quote:

Originally posted by packerboi:


Both he(Hawk) and Bishop almost seem to be playing with a chip on their shoulders.

Yes they are. I had Bishop pegged as the Torrence Marshall type going into camp. Oh brother was I wrong on that one. Both of them are playing very sound football this season.

Agreed, some how, some way we need to keep both Hawk and Bishop. If that means Barnett has to go, so be it.

quote:

Originally posted by BTP:
Bishop has been playing both base and nickle packages. He's in coverage more then you think AND playing very well in it. Obviously you haven't been either a)watching the games closely when he's on the field or b)have no idea exactly how a 3-4 defense works. Especially when the break out in zone coverage(s).

I'll try to keep this really simple so maybe you can keep up.

Bishop has improved, but he's not as versatile as Barnett or Chillar in coverage. Saying otherwise is ridiculous. Bishop doesn't have the speed/drop ability of Barnett or Chillar. It shows up across the defense, especially with the safeties (and even corners a bit). In zone coverage especially, an inside linebacker should be able to deep drop as a safety in coverage, which Barnett and Chillar can. That's why Capers chose to play them and make Bishop a backup.

Barnett and Chillar allow more versatility in coverage. Capers chose to play them in part for that reason. Bishop has more size than them, which has advantages and disadvantages. Capers has had to modify coverage and the defense in general to compensate for teh personel at hand. But again, he chose Barnett over Bishop for a reason. It's not like he benched Barnett for Bishop, Bishop only made the lineup regularly when Barnett was hurt.

If you actually paid attention to how the defense is running and changing you'd understand this.

quote:

He's racked up 100+ tackles, 3 INT's (including a game changer against TOG and the Queens), and 2-3 FF's. He's healthy. He's here day in and day out and to not even consider him with a pay cut is just stupid.

As far as not consideriing him even with a pay cut, I should have been more specific about the amount; otherwise, you're right, its a stupid statement. To clarify, I dont want to pay him his market value, as I feel we can get the same production for far less.

I dont give him much credit for Favre INT. That got tossed right into his belly as the intended receiver had already crossed his face.. Just a horrible throw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...re=player_embedded#!

My point is that I believe you can plug just about any NFL caliber ILB in that spot and get his production. I feel this way because the Line is what makes any ILB look good, save for the truly special players like Lewis or Willis.

AJ Hawk owes his tackle to BJ Raji and Picket before him. The next guy in line will be able to clean up 2 yards down field as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Herschel:Bishop has improved,

*gasp* No kidding?

quote:

Originally posted by Herschel: but he's not as versatile as Barnett or Chillar in coverage. Saying otherwise is ridiculous.

Nice way to try and change the argument and add words into people mouths.

quote:

Originally posted by Herschel: Bishop doesn't have the speed/drop ability of Barnett or Chillar. It shows up across the defense, especially with the safeties (and even corners a bit). In zone coverage especially, an inside linebacker should be able to deep drop as a safety in coverage, which Barnett and Chillar can. That's why Capers chose to play them and make Bishop a backup.

Wait, you mean, they might be mixing up it up in 2nd year of the 3-4, like I original said? ...........No! Can't be!


Of course this all has nothing to with your original comment of:

quote:

Originally posted by Herschel:
. Capers has modified the linebackers' roles some with the injury situation and Bishop chases the QB more because they don't want him in coverage much. Hawk also gets to sit underneath a lot.

in which in 100% completely false, and I've showed you video clips back up my claims.

quote:

Originally posted by Herschel:Barnett and Chillar allow more versatility in coverage. Capers chose to play them in part for that reason.

So, I'm just imagining Barnett and Chillar on IR and Bishop out there playing in the base and nickel packages?

quote:

Originally posted by Herschel:If you actually paid attention to how the defense is running and changing you'd understand this.

FAIL!

Do you think Capers is clueless?

Bishop wasn't even really the primary backup to Barnett, he was the third option. Bishop does some nice things in the short area, but he struggles in space. Capers is able to mix it up more with Barnett or Chillar in there because they can do more.

By necessity Bishop has to play more downs, but Capers limits what he has to do in coverage because he's not as versatile as Barnett or Chillar. Bishop appears to be a decent blitzer too so why wouldn't Capers play to the strengths and against players' weaknesses?

Look at it this way, can you imagine them using Bishop as a spy on players like Vick? They have used Barnett in that spot multiple times because of his range, experience, recognition and versatility.

Bishop is similar to Bernardo Harris in a lot of ways, good in the short area but has issues in space. That was fine in 1982 but tough to get around in 2010. The best ILBs can all move these days: Lewis, Willis, Ryans, Urlacher, etc.

I see you're still trying to change your argument. It's cute and all ,but go play in traffic

quote:

Bishop is similar to Bernardo Harris in a lot of ways

?? Besides they play football, can you give me some more?

quote:

Originally posted by Grave Digger:
Kind of off topic, but was anyone else a little impressed by Robert Francois at OLB? He's a guy we definitely need to keep as depth in my opinion.

Lacks athletism, but the guy plays hard and has some instincts. He is a keeper. Versitility is a huge plus as well.

Bishop is everything this defense has been missing at ILB. A good blitzer and a thumper. He is not as fast as Barnett, but I like him better. barnett is a good player though. I don't feel the need to bash either one of these guys.

Chillar is a better athlete than Hawk, but he struggles against the run. IMO, he is a nickel backer, not a fulltime starter.

My guess would be that Poppinga will be cut/traded. If Barnett can't make the move to OLB he'll be cut/traded. I'd expect Jolly to be back next season. I'm not as sure as some that AJ Hawk will be willing to accept a salary cut to stay.

quote:

Originally posted by Herschel:
Bishop is similar to Bernardo Harris in a lot of ways, good in the short area but has issues in space. That was fine in 1982 but tough to get around in 2010. The best ILBs can all move these days: Lewis, Willis, Ryans, Urlacher, etc.

Um. Wow. Bishop is ten times the athlete that Blocked-Hardo Harris could ever have dreamed of being. No, Bishop isn't as fast or quick as the guys you mentioned, but all those guys play in a 4-3. Totally different approach, and if GB still played a 4-3 IMHO Barnett would be a better fit for that scheme. ILB's in the 3-4 are big thumpers that still have some quickness. Levon Kirkland was a top-flight ILB in the 3-4, and he weighed about 9,000 pounds in a very similar system.

quote:

Originally posted by TD:

quote:

Bishop is similar to Bernardo Harris in a lot of ways

?? Besides they play football, can you give me some more?

Well, they both have played linebacker for the Packers, and both have worn jersey #55 while playing for the Packers.

Other than that, I got nothin'.

quote:

Originally posted by JJSD:
... and he weighed about 9,000 pounds in a very similar system.

Were moving Howard Green, to ILB?

quote:

Originally posted by Herschel:
Bishop is similar to Bernardo Harris in a lot of ways

Bernardo Harris?!?!?! LMAO!!

That just might go into the archives with Diggr's Raji = Bust take.

quote:

Bishop is similar to Bernardo Harris in a lot of ways

quote:

Originally posted by BrainDed:
As far as not consideriing him even with a pay cut, I should have been more specific about the amount; otherwise, you're right, its a stupid statement. To clarify, I dont want to pay him his market value, as I feel we can get the same production for far less.

I dont give him much credit for Favre INT. That got tossed right into his belly as the intended receiver had already crossed his face.. Just a horrible throw.

So Wait. Now we're only counting INT's that what....meet some convoluted criteria? What did he need to do make some sort of flip, dive X amount of feet, catch it with his finger tips for it to count?

Newsflash: Plenty of really good players drop INT's they should have had. See Charles Woodson 2 weeks ago. Just like AJ Hawk, he had a pick 6 (by Woodson's own admission) thrown right to him by Brady. He dropped it and should have had it.

Hawk's "ease" in making the INT doesn't make it's importance any less valid. It came at a critical time in the game and he caught it. Period.

As for his market value I have no idea what thats supposed to mean. If by market value you mean a fair offer, then yet again this is silly and stupid as a fair offer for his market value is precisely what he should receive. He's had a solid year and has only gotten better.

I have full confidence TT will not over pay him but offer him a fair restructure. Which is exactly what he deserves.

Desmond Bishop.

I didn't realize interceptions were now classified as "easy". We should call Bishop's pick of Favre "easy" too.

This thread belongs in the archives. "hiarious"

quote:

Originally posted by JJSD:

quote:

Originally posted by Herschel:
Bishop is similar to Bernardo Harris in a lot of ways, good in the short area but has issues in space. That was fine in 1982 but tough to get around in 2010. The best ILBs can all move these days: Lewis, Willis, Ryans, Urlacher, etc.

Um. Wow. Bishop is ten times the athlete that Blocked-Hardo Harris could ever have dreamed of being. No, Bishop isn't as fast or quick as the guys you mentioned, but all those guys play in a 4-3. Totally different approach, and if GB still played a 4-3 IMHO Barnett would be a better fit for that scheme. ILB's in the 3-4 are big thumpers that still have some quickness. Levon Kirkland was a top-flight ILB in the 3-4, and he weighed about 9,000 pounds in a very similar system.

Bishop is a better athlete than Harris, but he's about as close as the Packers have had relatively recently and both had similar shortcomings: coverage speed and range. Harris was a pretty good thumper in the middle and cleaned up tackle-to-tackle very well but had issues in space. Maybe I'm misremembering but Harris was pretty decent in the short area.

Barnett going down had ripples across the defense, all the way out to Woodson.

Also, Ray Lewis has been playing in a 3-4 for a number of years now and Willis was playing in a Nolan hybrid scheme early on too. While Kirkland was an oddity in a lot of ways often the 3-4 has one thumper and one guy who can move inside, the Steelers had Earl Holmes who must have topped out around 240.

quote:

Originally posted by Boris:


Bernardo Harris?!?!?!

What other Packers linebacker in the past decade or two would be closer? Torrance Marshall was a super stud athlete but dumber than a stump. Brian Noble?

He's closer to Wayne Simmons than Bernardo Harris.

I know Barnett was a Sherman pick and Bishop is a TT pick so Barnett is going to look better to you but come on man! There is no question this defense is better since Barnett went out and Bishop replaced him.

I was a Bishop doubter myself this year but he has been lights out better than I expected.