Nick Barnett

etk · 07-26-2011, 01:10 PM

Gonna be cut by the Packers and named us as one of the teams he really wants to play for. We could sign him to a 3-year deal or something like that. No risk, just let him start while Foster/McKenzie/Black get experience until they're ready.

We all (except Caddy) know how much Ruud sucks and it looks like Poz is gonna stay in Buffalo. Even if you do like Ruud you have to concede that signing Barnett to a shorter-term contract is much less risky.

cvv84 · 07-26-2011, 03:20 PM

I think Barnett's biggest suitors will be the Lions and Bucs. Kind of funny though seeing I know how you guys rag on Rudd, Barnett was criticized the same way by Packers fans for years.

He's still a very good player but he ran into some bad luck injuries the past few years.

bucfan12 · 07-26-2011, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cvv84

I think Barnett's biggest suitors will be the Lions and Bucs. Kind of funny though seeing I know how you guys rag on Rudd, Barnett was criticized the same way by Packers fans for years.

He's still a very good player but he ran into some bad luck injuries the past few years.

I really don't think Tampa Bay will be in the market for Barnett. The media on ESPN has projected interest, but pewterreport.com has shown if they are interested in a MLB, it would most likely be Paul Posloszny or replace him with Foster or McKenzie.

etk · 07-26-2011, 03:53 PM

Ruud is the only finesse MLB in the league. I'll leave it at that.

The staff is really excited about Foster and even McKenzie, so Barnett is very low risk with the cap room we have.

Agree about Poz bucfan but I don't think he'll make the market.

Caddy · 07-27-2011, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by etk

Gonna be cut by the Packers and named us as one of the teams he really wants to play for. We could sign him to a 3-year deal or something like that. No risk, just let him start while Foster/McKenzie/Black get experience until they're ready.

We all (except Caddy) know how much Ruud sucks and it looks like Poz is gonna stay in Buffalo. Even if you do like Ruud you have to concede that signing Barnett to a shorter-term contract is much less risky.

Heyyyyyyyy :( Don't think I won't have you banned!

But seriously I wouldn't mind bringing Barnett in. He has always been a favourite non-buc player of mine. Plus, he'd get injured before week 7 so Foster can step in after learning for a bit :D

brasho · 07-27-2011, 06:22 AM

Barnett doesn't fit the profile. He's 30, he's been injury-prone, I don't see the Bucs having any interest at all.

etk · 07-27-2011, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caddy

Heyyyyyyyy :( Don't think I won't have you banned!

But seriously I wouldn't mind bringing Barnett in. He has always been a favourite non-buc player of mine. Plus, he'd get injured before week 7 so Foster can step in after learning for a bit :D

I hate to say it, but that's kind of my thinking. Sign Barnett to a relatively short-term deal to help tutor Foster and let him ease into the starting gig. If we're seriously expecting a playoff run then we should be concerned about depending on a rookie MLB in a playoff atmosphere. Barnett has experience and big-game experience and poses no threat to our ability to extend our current group of players. There's really no downside to signing him and all it says is that we are doing our best to make certain that we have a good LB group. We need to minimize uncertainty with the youth at the position.

brasho · 07-27-2011, 11:27 AM

I think the thinking in Tampa is, and has been, that signing a FA would take away training camp reps and game reps from the younger players the team wants to grow with. Don't shoot the messenger, that's our MO. I don't see why we would break that MO for Nick Barnett.

etk · 07-27-2011, 11:34 AM

I fully expect our MLB depth chart to be Foster-McKenzie, but I'd like to add Barnett to that mix. Dominik is stubbornly anointing Foster the MLB when I'd like to see him start out as our 4th MLB like Ruud did.

brasho · 07-27-2011, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by etk

I fully expect our MLB depth chart to be Foster-McKenzie, but I'd like to add Barnett to that mix. Dominik is stubbornly anointing Foster the MLB when I'd like to see him start out as our 4th MLB like Ruud did.

You throw high expectations on Foster and he;ll be more likely to meet them than if we give him no expectations... well, there's a pretty good chance he could meet no expectations. If Foster is going to sit behind somebody, I wouldn't think McKenzie wouldn't be a bad guy. Third year in the league and almost a year in the T-2 should give him enough knowledge and experience to be able to adequately perform his duties until Foster is ready.

Of course there is option #3, which is the drum I've been banging for a while now. Quincy Black. A guy with his speed and athleticism would be most effective at Mike where he can roam, make plays sideline-to-sideline, and use his speed to run the alley in the middle of the field. I suspect/hope that Black is being suckered into his deal as a Sam, only to be flipped to Mike because he "knows the system" and have Watson fight Foster for reps at Sam. Foster's athleticism seems more suited for Sam anyways. People that think he'll be an athletic upgrade over Ruud will be sorely mistaken. He is an athletic parrallel to Ruud... but in terms of a player, he is clearly superior... because he's not Ruud.

etk · 07-28-2011, 08:18 AM

His athleticism trumps Ruud's because he's built with more strength and power in his legs, meaning that he doesn't get run over and dragged constantly. Ruud is probably quicker in his drops but Black is quicker downhill because of his burst, making him a better blitzer and TFL guy.

brasho · 07-28-2011, 08:26 AM

You talking about Black or Foster? BTW, Ruud got blocked because he chooses to be, he never submarined a blocker, never put his helmet in the blocker's chest, never tried to at least run around the blocker, he just simply puts his patty cake hands up and allows himself to be pushed down field. That is a mentality, not a technique. Players are better off dropping to the ground when they are near the hole when being blocked by a bigger guy, at least that creates traffic on the ground for the runner to have to avoid. Ruud couldn't even do that, instead he wanted to geet pushed downfield.

etk · 07-28-2011, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brasho

You talking about Black or Foster? BTW, Ruud got blocked because he chooses to be, he never submarined a blocker, never put his helmet in the blocker's chest, never tried to at least run around the blocker, he just simply puts his patty cake hands up and allows himself to be pushed down field. That is a mentality, not a technique. Players are better off dropping to the ground when they are near the hole when being blocked by a bigger guy, at least that creates traffic on the ground for the runner to have to avoid. Ruud couldn't even do that, instead he wanted to geet pushed downfield.

I was talking about Black. What you're syaing about Ruud's mentality is true, but he also doesn't have the power to strike through his hips so he often gets run over and dragged by smaller backs. That's an athletic deficiency that should've been identified by our incompetent previous staff before they drafted him.

brasho · 07-28-2011, 08:38 AM

There's no doubt Black is superior in every way athletically. In our D, only the Sam HAS to take on blocks on every play. I always thought Ruud was more suited for the Sam and Black for the Mike... but Ruud never did show he could take on blocks, athletic deficiency or not, I'd rather see the guy on the ground than running 15.5 mph in reverse being pushed like a blocking sled.

Legacy · 07-29-2011, 08:17 AM

Black is a great athlete, but that's about all I see in him. He's never struck me as an instinctive player. It would be interesting to see him moved into the MLB spot simply because he's got the speed to cover the deep middle and he's familiar with that role from his time at New Mexico.