Antonio Pierce - Would you have him in GB?

[PackAttackUK]

Just read that the Giants have cut MLB Antonio Pierce. Now, I'm a fan of Pierce, and as a FA, I think he could be a good addition to our football team.

What do you think?

Giants' defensive purge continues with veteran LB Pierce's release

 

[Green_Bay_Packers]

I dont know I know he can play but will he fit in Green Bay?????

 

[NYPacker]

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.

 

[AllouezPackerFan]

He could always carry guns around for other players. For that reason alone, I say we get him.

 

[Bossfan]

Not really a big upgrade over our current LB's.

 

[claybillings]

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!

 

[NYPacker]

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.

 

[claybillings]

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.

No one is as bad as Jarret Bush are they....they just can't be..its not possible

 

[A1MEANGREEN]

Not really a big upgrade over our current LB's.

thats it in a nut shell

 

[GB2009]

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.

 

[DILLIGAFF]

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.

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.

 

[AllouezPackerFan]

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.

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

 

[Raptorman]

He could always carry guns around for other players. For that reason alone, I say we get him.

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.

 

[AllouezPackerFan]

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.

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

 

[PackersRS]

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.

 

[AllouezPackerFan]

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.

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

 

[PackersRS]

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

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.

 

[DILLIGAFF]

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.

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)

 

[PackersRS]

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)

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...

 

[AllouezPackerFan]

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...

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

 

[PackersRS]

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

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.

 

[ivo610]

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.

 

[AllouezPackerFan]

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.

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.

 

[ivo610]

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.

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.

 

[PackersRS]

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.

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...