1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

Antonio Pierce - Would you have him in GB?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by PackAttackUK, Feb 12, 2010.

  1. PackAttackUK

    PackAttackUK Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    689
    Ratings:
    +26
  2. Green_Bay_Packers

    Green_Bay_Packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Messages:
    5,636
    Ratings:
    +110
    I dont know I know he can play but will he fit in Green Bay?????
     
  3. NYPacker

    NYPacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,582
    Ratings:
    +38
    He can certainly play but and is an exceptional leader. I doubt that Green Bay will bring him in though, he'll command a large contract and since we're stacked with Barnett, Hawk, Chillar, Bishop there's no more room for an extra ILB.
     
  4. AllouezPackerFan

    AllouezPackerFan Section 121 Row 47

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,602
    Ratings:
    +339
    He could always carry guns around for other players. For that reason alone, I say we get him.
     
  5. Bossfan

    Bossfan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    15
    Ratings:
    +0
    Not really a big upgrade over our current LB's.
     
  6. claybillings

    claybillings Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    183
    Ratings:
    +4
    He's not an upgrade trust me, he is even worse in coverage than out other guys, plus he likes to blame others on his team for bad play. Don't really want that in my locker room. Plus he seems to be strictly a 4-3 middle linebacker.

    Personally I just want Bishop to see more time on the field, split time with hawk or something, because I feel if he got a fair shot he would make some noise, the man CAN HIT!
     
  7. NYPacker

    NYPacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,582
    Ratings:
    +38
    Bishop is exactly like Jarrett Bush in terms of coverage. I know, I know Bishop is a stud in the preseason. But that's preseason! Last season he took over the MLB spot when Barnett was on IR and did a horrible job in covering the middle or getting after the running back. That is why the coaches made the decision to transition Hawk from OLB to MLB so bishop didn't get his share of the reps.
     
  8. claybillings

    claybillings Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    183
    Ratings:
    +4
    No one is as bad as Jarret Bush are they....they just can't be..its not possible
     
  9. A1MEANGREEN

    A1MEANGREEN Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    252
    Ratings:
    +5
    thats it in a nut shell
     
  10. GB2009

    GB2009 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    55
    Ratings:
    +5
    Pierce will be overpriced on the market in which the Packers will not be able to sign. Not to mention he fits in a 4-3 and not a 3-4.

    This is what the Packers should do with their linebackers.
    1. Don't sign Kampman... on the decline even before the injury. Please don't talk about him being a top DE before the switch to the 3-4 or the fact that he is a great locker room guy. "It's about production on the field not off the field."
    2. Move Hawk to Kampman's old spot and have him only rush the QB in which he is no longer liable in pass coverage.
    3. Have Bishop in on rushing downs and have Chillar in on passing downs.
    4. Barnett and Matthews are good at their spots.
     
  11. DILLIGAFF

    DILLIGAFF Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2009
    Messages:
    603
    Ratings:
    +4
    IMO Hawk is too slow to play the OLB position, then again I think he is too slow to play inside. If we can get a 3rd or 4th round pick for him in a trade we should trade him this year, as next year he is due a 10 million contract, forcing the Packers to cut him.

    If Hawk is on the team this year and Chillar comes in on passing downs, we will pay 5 million and be giving up a 3rd or 4th round pick for a role player with no future. IMO Hawk does not fit the 3-4 and the Pack needs to move due to lack of future with Hawk.

    I do agree with you that Bishop/Chillar will be as good as Hawk, if not better.

    The opposite side of Mathews should be a competition between Brad Jones/rookie/free agent or trade. The Kampman experiment failed and his contract (lack of) seals the deal.

    I know a lot of people feel we need another OLB, which is true, Jones is a "?" and we need depth, but we need a dynamic inside LB to complement Barnett, if it can not be addressed this year, Chillar/Bishop will do fine.
     
  12. AllouezPackerFan

    AllouezPackerFan Section 121 Row 47

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,602
    Ratings:
    +339

    Agreed. In regards to Antionio Pierce though.....NO
     
  13. Raptorman

    Raptorman Vikings fan since 1966.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,175
    Ratings:
    +835
    As long as it's out in the open it will be ok in WI. Now if he puts in his pocket or his man purse then he can get in trouble.
     
  14. AllouezPackerFan

    AllouezPackerFan Section 121 Row 47

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,602
    Ratings:
    +339

    Yeah. You wouldn't want to holster it in your waistline. He might shoot his dumb *** in the leg.
     
  15. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +979
    For the right price, I would.

    But don't know if he'd be an upgrade, since he has only played in the 4-3, and has the same build as Barnett.
     
  16. AllouezPackerFan

    AllouezPackerFan Section 121 Row 47

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,602
    Ratings:
    +339

    Thats exactly the thing. He's not an upgrade, and definitely not worth the price tag that will be on him.
     
  17. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +979
    I can't affirm that he wouldn't be an upgrade. He's more fluid that Hawk, and is a great leader.

    But I can't say he would, because he plays the exact same role as Barnett. He's undersized, as Barnett, flows well, and is a leader. But he's not great at holding the point of attack.

    But with our DL, that mainly holds the point of attack, he might as well be, if he's healthy and still has some left in the tank.
     
  18. DILLIGAFF

    DILLIGAFF Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2009
    Messages:
    603
    Ratings:
    +4

    If you follow my posts I don't have that high of opinion of Hawk's skill, love him as a player but question his talent. This is the way I see it:

    Hawk = 5 million this year to 10 million the following year, he is a one year prospect because in 2011 his contract (10 million + TT)becomes an issue forcing the Pack to release him. Considered assignment sure and good against the run, lacks speed, Hawks weaknesses is pass defense in open space and little pass rush/blitz qualities.

    If Pierce can get healthy and sign at a reasonable price:

    Pierce = say 3 million a year for a long term contract for 3 years, making him a long term prospect, great super bowl veteran, improvement at blitzing and pass defense. The Pack would pick up the trade value of Hawk this year, as apposed to getting nothing for him in 2011.

    So Hawk = 5 million(2010) + released in 2011 with no compensation

    Pierce = 3 million(2010) + Hawks trade value + long term prospect (3 to 4 years contract)
     
  19. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +979
    Yeah, I was away and didn't read the whole debate.

    I agree, but I can't say for sure, that's what I mean. The projection to the 3-4, being that we have a similar player, is the question mark in the equation.

    I don't agree, however, that he has trade value. Bringing in a veteran FA to be trade bait only happens on Madden NFL...
     
  20. AllouezPackerFan

    AllouezPackerFan Section 121 Row 47

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,602
    Ratings:
    +339

    Yeah....Hawk only has trade value when paired with a decent draft pick.
     
  21. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +979
    I meant Pierce doesn't have trade value.

    Hawk does. He's not worth a first day pick IMHO, but a late 3rd for sure.
     
  22. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,125
    Ratings:
    +4,082
    No thanks on Pierce. 31 with injury history is a bad sign. I would have rather had ray lewis last year. I wouldnt be surprised to see MN sign Pierce though.
     
  23. AllouezPackerFan

    AllouezPackerFan Section 121 Row 47

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,602
    Ratings:
    +339

    Of course you would rather have Ray Lewis. Of course I'd rather have all the great players in the league playing in Green Bay.
     
  24. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,125
    Ratings:
    +4,082
    No one offered him a contract last year besides baltimore. he got little interest from any other club. It would have been great to have him help the transition on D. I didnt say it as "oh I would like to have him because he is good." I said it because he was a free agent and didnt garner alot of interest around the league. Its really not that much different than saying I would have liked to have had randy moss in the 07 season. Randy was traded for but he was still headed for a new team/deal.
     
  25. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +979
    Now, I'm not going to prolongue the talk, but the Packers DID offer a trade for Moss.

    And you're sure noone offered Lewis a contract? Last time I heard, he denied contracts because they weren't in the range he was looking for...
     

Share This Page