Barnett out for the year - Page 2

ImBrotherCain · 11-10-2008, 07:15 PM

**** My Life :(

Vikes99ej · 11-10-2008, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TitleTown088

Lose your best Dlineman in addition, then you will.

Oh snap. Did I just imply Kampman isn't the best on the Packers?

I'm pretty sure we're losing two of them in a few weeks, so I'm bracing myself.

Dr. Gonzo · 11-10-2008, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vikes99ej

I'm pretty sure we're losing two of them in a few weeks, so I'm bracing myself.

e already lost Kenechi Udeze :)

TitleTown088 · 11-10-2008, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vikes99ej

I'm pretty sure we're losing two of them in a few weeks, so I'm bracing myself.

Yeah well ,they have no one to blame but themselves for that.

GB12 · 11-10-2008, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TitleTown088

Lose your best Dlineman in addition, then you will.

Oh snap. Did I just imply Kampman isn't the best on the Packers?

I'm about as big of a Jenkins fan as you'll find, but that's ridiculous.

Vikes99ej · 11-10-2008, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TitleTown088

Yeah well ,they have no one to blame but themselves for that.

Shaddup. :(

ChezPower4 · 11-11-2008, 12:15 AM

I've always thought that Hawk would have been a better mike than a will. Guess now we might just find out. I hope for the sake of our season that he can play well there.

bored of education · 11-11-2008, 07:03 AM

Will Desmond Bishop see more time? That dude is a beast!

TitanHope · 11-11-2008, 10:13 AM

I thought Bishop was receiving hype prior to this season, and that he would be a starter if not for Barnett. If that's true, it'd be a shame to not at least give him a chance at MLB. He did give up one bad play to Chester Taylor, but I thought he forced a fumble and made a few other plays (though, all I saw were highlights).

If Bishop plays and plays well, then he or Barnett would be trade bait come draft time.

jsa230 · 11-11-2008, 11:27 AM

I really like bishop, he plays with a nasty demeanor and even though he might not be the fastest or strongest player on the feild, he still makes plays. He has been a beast on st recently and i hope he sees some playing time. I know MM likes him so it seems pretty likely. I will tell you what i dont want to see, Chillar-Hawk-Poppinga. Chillar could probably start for some nfl teams but i wasnt impressed during the titans game. He had like 4 tackles but he almost cost us a silly pass interference penalty in the endzone. I think if Hawk had 100% all year chillar wouldnt have seen the feild at all. Bishop>>>Chilar

Mr.Regular · 11-11-2008, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bored of education

Will Desmond Bishop see more time? That dude is a beast!

Meh Id rather us get Chillar/Hawk/Poppinga all on the field somehow, than see Bishop starting at MIKE.

PACKmanN · 11-11-2008, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TitanHope

I thought Bishop was receiving hype prior to this season, and that he would be a starter if not for Barnett. If that's true, it'd be a shame to not at least give him a chance at MLB. He did give up one bad play to Chester Taylor, but I thought he forced a fumble and made a few other plays (though, all I saw were highlights).

If Bishop plays and plays well, then he or Barnett would be trade bait come draft time.

Bishop is too slow to be a starter for the full season. I would rather see Chillar in the middle. He was picked up for this type of reason.

GB12 · 11-11-2008, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsa230

I really like bishop, he plays with a nasty demeanor and even though he might not be the fastest or strongest player on the feild, he still makes plays. He has been a beast on st recently and i hope he sees some playing time. I know MM likes him so it seems pretty likely. I will tell you what i dont want to see, Chillar-Hawk-Poppinga. Chillar could probably start for some nfl teams but i wasnt impressed during the titans game. He had like 4 tackles but he almost cost us a silly pass interference penalty in the endzone. I think if Hawk had 100% all year chillar wouldnt have seen the feild at all. Bishop>>>Chilar

No. Just no. Chillar is better than Bishop and it's not even really close. The statement I bolded proves that you aren't one that should be judging this matter anyway. Chillar was brought in to play even without an injury and he did. He's been used for his superior coverage abilities and has been doing a good job at it. Last year tight ends killed us, that's why we signed Chillar to limit them. And as for him not seeing the field if Hawk wasn't hurt, he started the Dallas game over Poppinga and has had quite a bit of playing time with Hawk in at the same time throughout the season. He has been in Hawk's spot in nickel packages (a position Hawk has been at every game his NFL career prior to this season) not because of Hawk's injury, but because he was better at it. Now I think Hawk recently took that back, but Chillar was every bit as good doing that. Even if for some reason Bishop does start it will be Chillar and Hawk in nickel packages and Chillar might take over for Barnett in dime. Only way Bishop stands a chance is if for some reason they don't want to mess with moving Hawk, and even then I'd start Chillar in the middle over Bishop. Chillar was inactive due to an injury, but if he was active Bishop probably would have never gone in last week.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TitanHope

If Bishop plays and plays well, then he or Barnett would be trade bait come draft time.

Barnett's not going anywhere.

jsa230 · 11-11-2008, 07:12 PM

Im sorry we have a differnece in opinions, but i really like desmond bishop. Chillar just hasnt impressed me all too much. Thats all im saying.

tjsunstein · 11-11-2008, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsa230

Im sorry we have a differnece in opinions, but i really like desmond bishop. Chillar just hasnt impressed me all too much. Thats all im saying.

Chillar plays with intensity so does Bishop. The thing that seperates them is expierience, which leans towards Chillar, and discipline, also goes to Chillar. We can't have Bishop give up big plays biting on a playaction, which he is known to do, and he doesnt have the speed to make up for it. I like Bishop too but the time isnt right.

TitanHope · 11-11-2008, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PACKmanN

Bishop is too slow to be a starter for the full season. I would rather see Chillar in the middle. He was picked up for this type of reason.

I thought Chillar was subbing in for AJ Hawk on passing downs?

Lots of combonations at the LB spots, but I'm guessing Poppinga/Bishop/Hawk on 1st and 2nd Down would work, and on 3rd Down and obvious passing downs, Bishop comes out because he's too slow, Hawk moves to MIKE where he should have enough speed for a MLB, and Chillar goes in at WLB as usual to replace Hawk. That way no liabilities are left to be exploited.

GB12 · 11-11-2008, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TitanHope

I thought Chillar was subbing in for AJ Hawk on passing downs?

Lots of combonations at the LB spots, but I'm guessing Poppinga/Bishop/Hawk on 1st and 2nd Down would work, and on 3rd Down and obvious passing downs, Bishop comes out because he's too slow, Hawk moves to MIKE where he should have enough speed for a MLB, and Chillar goes in at WLB as usual to replace Hawk. That way no liabilities are left to be exploited.

Chillar can play all 3 of our LB positions.

The scenario you explained doesn't make any sense. The reason there's any question of what we're going to do is because we don't know if the coaching staff is willing to move Hawk for just half a season or if they don't want to mess with moving him. If they're willing to move him like you have then he'd be there full time with Poppinga and Chillar on the outside. If they're not willing to move him I'd say the odds of Chillar in the middle over Bishop are 75-25. Bishop should not be a starter and in all likelyhood won't be.

TitanHope · 11-11-2008, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GB12

Chillar can play all 3 of our LB positions.

The scenario you explained doesn't make any sense. The reason there's any question of what we're going to do is because we don't know if the coaching staff is willing to move Hawk for just half a season or if they don't want to mess with moving him. If they're willing to move him like you have then he'd be there full time with Poppinga and Chillar on the outside. If they're not willing to move him I'd say the odds of Chillar in the middle over Bishop are 75-25. Bishop should not be a starter and in all likelyhood won't be.

I was thinking along that line, but wanted to create a solution for AJ Hawk's pass-coverage liability as well as Bishop's deficiencies.

If AJ Hawk really isn't all that bad, then your scenario is most likely.

Why does Bishop have a roster spot?

tjsunstein · 11-11-2008, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TitanHope

I was thinking along that line, but wanted to create a solution for AJ Hawk's pass-coverage liability as well as Bishop's deficiencies.

If AJ Hawk really isn't all that bad, then your scenario is most likely.

Why does Bishop have a roster spot?

Special Teams.

GB12 · 11-11-2008, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TitanHope

I was thinking along that line, but wanted to create a solution for AJ Hawk's pass-coverage liability as well as Bishop's deficiencies.

If AJ Hawk really isn't all that bad, then your scenario is most likely.

Why does Bishop have a roster spot?

Hawk isn't much of a liability in coverage. He's definitely a step down from Barnett, but I'm not too worried about it. If pass coverage is the concern then it sure as hell won't be Bishop.

No matter what the starting alignment is Chillar will take Barnett's space in the nickel, and probably his spot for dime and other single LB packages.

Bishop is on the team as our 5th linebacker and his special teams.

dc22 · 11-12-2008, 02:04 PM

chillar was in the nickel cause hawk wasn't a 100 percent but now he's once again ahead of him

i'd rather see pop at strong side, hawk middle, and chillar on the weak-side

idk if it's just me or does anybody else think that barnett has struggled all year in coverage

PACKmanN · 11-12-2008, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GB12

Hawk isn't much of a liability in coverage. He's definitely a step down from Barnett, but I'm not too worried about it. If pass coverage is the concern then it sure as hell won't be Bishop.

No matter what the starting alignment is Chillar will take Barnett's space in the nickel, and probably his spot for dime and other single LB packages.

Bishop is on the team as our 5th linebacker and his special teams.

right now with how Barnett is playing, I wouldn't say Hawk is a step down from Barnett.

TitleTown088 · 11-12-2008, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GB12

Hawk isn't much of a liability in coverage. He's definitely a step down from Barnett, but I'm not too worried about it. If pass coverage is the concern then it sure as hell won't be Bishop.

Statistically Hawk was the best coverage LB in the league last season if i remember correctly.

JSonline reported Hawk is going to start at MIKE vs Da bears.

jsa230 · 11-12-2008, 10:07 PM

so that means its going to be popp/hawk/chillar... i really wish they would just leave hawk at will:<