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!
    Dismiss Notice

Linebacker shuffle

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by DakotaT, Aug 9, 2006.

  1. DakotaT

    DakotaT Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    810
    Ratings:
    +0
    Apparently, Nick isn't too happy about his rumored move to SAM if Hodge ends up being the third best linebacker. Barnett is in his contract year and the SAM is the least glorified linebacker position. I think it is a foregone conclusion that Hawk is solidified at WILL, as well he should be with his contract. My question is this: is it worth potentially losing Barnett to free agency by giving Hodge the MLB position this year?

    This is a nice problem to have, but Barnett is not a player I want to see leave Green Bay.

    One other thing, if Nick is moved to SAM, do we cut Taylor to allow a younger prospect to develop? Also where does BradyPop fit into this equation?
     
  2. Since69

    Since69 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Messages:
    422
    Ratings:
    +1
    I think it's much ado about nothing... at least for this year. Taylor is a good player. Unless he really stinks it up in the preseason, Hodge will remain our backup MLB. Next year? Who knows?
     
  3. Bruce

    Bruce Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,078
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think you are correct, but I think Hodge will get a shot at challenging for the SAM position -- so far he looks to have earned it. But of course in addition to the big hits he is delivering, he is making some mistakes that would be killers in game situations. But this kid works hard. I expect him to learn from his mistakes and get the MIKE position down and get his shot at the SAM -- though I suspect you are correct about him still being a year away.
     
  4. DakotaT

    DakotaT Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    810
    Ratings:
    +0
    I don't agree at all with putting Hodge at SAM. He is a natural MLB, and playing him out of postion makes absolutely no sense. I don't have a problem with Hodge learning for a year behind Barnett, but if the coaches feel he is one of the three best backers, he needs to be on the field at MIKE.

    This is the most intriguing development in training camp, and I hope Winston Moss makes the best choice for the Packers.
     
  5. Bruce

    Bruce Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,078
    Ratings:
    +0
    I agree that Hodge is a natural MIKE, but I do not think he is capable of beating out Barnett. Frankly, I expect him to spend the season as Nick's backup and a major special teams contributor.

    However, if he continues to show well he will be given a shot to see if he can play the SAM position -- I don't think that he can, but the guy is a gamer, who drills folks when given the opportunity.
     
  6. DakotaT

    DakotaT Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    810
    Ratings:
    +0
    Also, I don't think Barnett has done anything to warrant a demotion to SAM.

    As far as SAM goes, I think Taylor and Poppinga should battle it out for that starting spot.
     
  7. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    I generally like Barnett's game...hell, look at the tackle numbers for his first 3 years. However, I have noticed that his tackles, especially on blitzes, lack "pop"....something that Hodge delivers in abundance. Nick has a propensity to jump on a player and drag him down rather than hitting him, exploding through the tackle, and causing big plays...again, something Hodge does well.

    Look, the MLB is the tone-setter of the group, and personally, I feel Hodge belongs in the middle if he continues to ascend and his coverage skills do not allow the move to sam. If his coverage skills improve sufficiently, put him at sam, if not, put him in the middle, move Barnett and you have the best 3 on the field.

    If Barnett cannot understand that....if winning is not his priority...well, I guess he goes somewhere else when his contract is up. I am a little disappointed in a player whom I really like...his words were bush league.
     
  8. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    I don't think it's a question of beating Barnett out. The question is which combination will do the best job. If Hodge in the middle with Barnett outside makes the LB unit overall more effective than Barnett might have to give it up for the sake of the team.

    It's great that he had 200 tackles last year but we won 4 games. From his quotes he didn't seem to see the forest for the trees. Yes, he's been a great middle LB on a team that hasn't been as good defensively as it needs to be.
    If the move makes them better he shouldn't even blink.
     
  9. cyoung

    cyoung Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,276
    Ratings:
    +2
    I like all of our line Backers but for now I think it will remain

    Taylor/Barnett/Hawk
    Manning/Hodge/Poppinga
     
  10. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    Either way it shakes out, it is a nice dilemna to have...an abundance of talented LBs.

    When is the last time we could say THAT in GB.
     
  11. cyoung

    cyoung Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,276
    Ratings:
    +2
    without half of them getting injured.....NEVER
     
  12. DakotaT

    DakotaT Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    810
    Ratings:
    +0
    The 60's, unfortunately, DakotaT was not around to enjoy the dominance.
     
  13. cyoung

    cyoung Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,276
    Ratings:
    +2
    oh yeah they had a great LB corp............why are you speaking in 3rd person
     
  14. Packnic

    Packnic Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,454
    Ratings:
    +6
    hey i got an idea.... i submit that we move our leading tackler and one hell of a middle lineback either to the SAM, or we just ship him outta here next year.
    all because a rookie "natural" mlb has had a decent preseason in scrimmages and practice. BRILLIANT. in fact lets just cut nick barnett right now, hes too much of a cap blow to have him stinkin up the joint.

    how bout that "natural" MLB (whom i dig and hope becomes the best linebacker ever to play the game) earns his way into whatever spot the coaches see fit. i mean i know hes a "natural mlb" but its his first year and he can develop coverage skills needed to handle the SAM.

    And i think if he proves after a year that hes better than barnett, Nick would move to the SAM if he felt he could handle it. I just think Nick is upset with everyone wanting to boot him out of a job that he has freakin dominated for three straight years. just because some rookie with the coolest nickname ever, has a couple good practices.
    cyoung is right
    Taylor/Barnett/Hawk
    Manning/Hodge/Pop
    until further notice
     
  15. paxvogel

    paxvogel Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Messages:
    503
    Ratings:
    +0
    You solve this problem by negotiating with Barnett now and giving him a good contract that will make him want to stay and let him know that his willingness to change positions is part of why he gets the deal.
     
  16. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    Um...Packnic...I think what most are saying is that if Hodge continues to impress, making it abundantly clear he is the best candidate to complete a trio...and if MLB is where he fits...you put the best 3 on the field.

    Barnett, for all his tackles and stats, it not a true physical presence. Yes, he is a decent tackler....but he has yet to produce big plays in the blitz package or banging the RB and forcing fumbles. SAM has to cover, Barnett is a converted safety.....MLB needs to be a thumper with a truly physical and explosive presence...Hodge has that.

    On paper, it seems a natural move, provided Hodge continues to excel. I like guys that are about winning, and Barnett's comments don't come across real well. Bottom line Nick....if you can cover (max. value in today's game) and make plays as a SLB, you are going to be paid....handsomely, I might add...by us or someone else.

    Please don't overlook the shortcomings to his otherwise excellent performance over the last 3 years. For all his attributes, Nick lacks physicality..best personified by a blitz on Culpepper, I believe, where Nick jumped and basically gave the guy a bear hug with his arms and legs...and the play got off. Early results indicate that Hodge would have splattered him...something I want from my MLB.
     
  17. NDPackerFan

    NDPackerFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,253
    Ratings:
    +4
    Where are the negative comments that Nick supposedly made about this possible move?
     
  18. DakotaT

    DakotaT Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    810
    Ratings:
    +0
  19. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    All about the bling...not about the Ring.
     
  20. Packnic

    Packnic Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,454
    Ratings:
    +6
    yeah digs i get that... and im just messing around with yall. but what i really do mean, is that Hodge has played handful of practice downs. no sense in kicking one of our solid players to the curb.

    i agree that he could be more physical, but you can chalk a weak defense up to any other shortcomings you may think he has. and even with that weak defense he still produces.

    he says it best here
    And I understand the reasoning of wanting to move me to the sam, because I can cover and I'm a smart player, but I think Abdul's smart enough to play that position, too.

    "I don't think they're giving him enough credit. I think he can play sam. It's not that hard of a position. But what's wrong with Ben (Taylor)? Ben's been excellent at sam. Why are we even talking about this?"

    also the leadership role your wanting to give a 3rd round rookie the MLB spot which is the leadership role of most defenses including this one.
    so your taking the guy with the most knowledge of the system and leadership capabilities out of the picture. i can see where this upsets him...

    as far as the future goes. i like pax's solution, resign him up for awhile with a clause stating your gettin this huge money because of your willingness to move around the three LB positions. THAT IS IF HODGE TAKES THE SPOT AWAY.
     
  21. pyledriver80

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings:
    +0


    Some of you guys are insane. What the hell would make you guys want to start Hodge in the middle over Barnett? The problem Barnett has in the middle that keeps him from being a Pro Bowler is he is undisciplined. Now you want to take that undisciplined player and move him outside? Whats even worse is you want to do it so we can start Hodge in the Middle based on 2 plays in a scrimmage in which AJ Cooper missed a block and Gado could not find the cutback on a run.


    Hodge may pan out in a few years and should contribute on special teams right away but I doubt he's ready to be the leader of the Defense and roll on the floor in laughter when anyone suggests we start Hodge over Barnett. I'm sorry but it is just stupid.
     
  22. TOPackerFan

    TOPackerFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,084
    Ratings:
    +0
    Barnett shouldn't be worried. He can make tackles 5 yards downfield at Sam just as easily as he can at Mike.
     
  23. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Digs.........Culpepper is a BIG QB. I don't think any linebacker has an easy time bringing him down. I don't know that if the situation was the same, that Hodge would have faired any better. With all the tackles Barnett has made, he must be physical. Or he would be falling off the RB's and WR's instead of dropping them.
     
  24. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    It's a good problem to have compared to years past when we had marginal linebacker talent in a scheme that asks more from that group than any other on the field.
    Some may not like the thought but if were getting the ball jammed down our throats on the ground and Barnett isn't physically holding it down it won't hurt my feeling any to try something that might fix it.

    With last years numbers we can be assured that teams game plan will include establishing the run. If, in fact, the Taylor/Barnett/Hawk combo can't stop it we have some things we can do and you can bet MM will not hesitate to do whatever it takes and I doubt Barnett will buck the idea at that point.

    All I hope Barnett is saying is let's wait and see and not jump the gun until it's obvious a change will improve our chances and I think that's exactly how MM is going to handle it.
     
  25. cyoung

    cyoung Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,276
    Ratings:
    +2
    yeah atleast the pack has 5 good linebackers
     

Share This Page