Why The Packers Won't Sign A Free Agent Linebacker
by Brandon on Feb 12, 2010 11:57 PM CST
in Green Bay Packers Analysis
Email
PrintBecause the Green Bay Packers are already paying a lot for the ones they've got. From Tom Pelissero at the Press-Gazette:
Nick Barnett is due $4.55 million in salary and bonuses. Clay Matthews is due $1.96 million. Brandon Chillar, who doesn't start in the base defense, is due $1.9 million in base salary alone. And Brady Poppinga, another backup, is due $2.4 million. Toss in Hawk, and that's already well over $15 million in five players -- without a clear starter at left outside linebacker, a position the Packers might fill with a high draft pick.
Throw in the possibility of resigning LB Aaron Kampman and it grows even higher. They need depth at linebacker in a 3-4 defense, but they can't spend their entire budget on linebackers.
Speculation from Bleacher Report about LB Antonio Pierce as a Packer is ridiculous. The Packers don't need an old linebacker with declining skills against the run and in pass coverage to play middle linebacker. They already have four better middle linebackers on the roster.
Speculation from Pro Football Talk about LB Joey Porter is crazy too. GM Ted Thompson doesn't pay top dollar for 33 year old free agents anyway, but Porter has struggled in 2 of the last 3 seasons, and he's become a major off-field distraction.
31 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
We could always cut Poppinga. I can’t see paying 2.4 mil to our worst7th best LB.
"I agree but dont agree"
Yeah, we should definitely cut him but I’m sure he is a “good contributor” on Special Teams in McCarthy’s eyes.
by packallday555 on Feb 13, 2010 2:22 PM CST up reply actions
The special teams that was so very special this last season.
by tkiller314 on Feb 13, 2010 8:39 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Nah
I’d pretty much put Navies and Lenon in the same class as Poppinga.
-
The glass is more than half-full.
Poppinga needs to go. AJ Hawk needs to be traded.
I like Hawk, but he needs to be traded to help this team in other areas. Chillar and Bishop are good ILB’s. I’m curious as to how Bishop could play OLB though. He’s a good blitzer, but that’d be a big experiment, and there’s no telling how successfull he’d be.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
I don’t think a Hawk trade is going to happen unfortunately. In reading some recents articles from the Journal Sentinel it doesn’t seem like Hawk will be traded or asked to take a pay cut which is kind of disappointing. I really wish Bishop and Chillar would take all the spots aside Barnett. Chillar is good in coverage, good at blitzing, and decent against the run. Bishop is a big hitter, can blitz well but is a little iffy in coverage.
by packallday555 on Feb 13, 2010 2:24 PM CST up reply actions
I am with you on those FAs
There is NO way we should go after Pierce OR Porter in my book. I don’t see them improving the team dramatically. They might be able to bring some vet leadership, but if Parcells won’t deal with Porter anymore, there is NO way TT will bring him in.
We need to keep Clay, A.J., and Nick
and throw Chillar and Poppinga out of town this instant. Just my thought…
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Feb 13, 2010 6:37 PM CST reply actions
Poppinga I can understand but why Chillar? He actually has been pretty good for us in his time. And we just signed him for like 4 years and 19 mil. Based off of that it seems like he might be the starter going into next year alongside Barnett.
by packallday555 on Feb 13, 2010 7:38 PM CST up reply actions
I’m torn between Chillar and Hawk. Hawk showed flashes of brilliance (ex. that crazy interception against Baltimore) this past season, and he is a solid reliable tackler – if i remember right he has had over 100 tackles in each of his seasons. Chillar’s more consistant in his play though, mainly in coverage. I couldn’t decide between them. But definatly get rid of Poppinga
Good things come to those who wait - except the Lions and Browns
by IdahoPackerBacker on Feb 14, 2010 6:55 PM CST up reply actions
I'm not a Chillar fan either
But with his new 4 year, $9 million guaranteed contract, he’s not going anywhere. And he’s certainly not bad enough to pay him that much not to play. I don’t understand GM Ted Thompson’s love of mediocre LBs (Chillar, Poppinga). I’ve just got to learn to keep my expectations low for Chillar. He’s OK in coverage and doesn’t make any big plays, but he’s a solid tackler who can fight through blocks and chips better than Hawk.
Who gave him THAT sort of deal?
Apparently Thompson is dumber than I thought…
Giving “guaranteed” money to a mediocre linebacker is just ASKING for trouble. What a nightmare.
So, IF and only IF Chillar tanks 2010, the Packers will dump him? Doesn’t sound like a great deal.
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Feb 15, 2010 4:45 PM CST up reply actions
I agree that it was a little too generous of a deal but all of the coaches have been publically high on Chillar, and he was actually playing pretty well until his injury. I would assume that he is going to be the starter next season, otherwise I’m not sure why TT would pay him as much as he did.
by packallday555 on Feb 15, 2010 10:28 PM CST up reply actions
LB's need to be playmakers
Outside of Clay and sometimes Barnett, the other guys are all “meh” average. None of them are passrushers except Clay. I’d take a declining Porter over Hawk anyday, and I don’t think we’d have to break the bank for him either. Getting to the QB is SOOO important, as the playoff’s showed.
Yeah, and I just don’t see him wanting to come to a city like GB. Plus he’ll want some money which TT won’t give him. He still can rush the passer though. I think he had 9 sacks and that was not even being a full time starter. Still though, I don’t think he is right for GB.
by packallday555 on Feb 14, 2010 2:12 PM CST up reply actions
I agree
The LBs are average, and getting to the QB is very important. Not necessarily sacks, but forcing them to move in the pocket, like the Vikings did to Drew Brees.
But the Dolphins have been so eager to cut him that he must really be a problem. I don’t know enough about him or his situation in Miami, but that really worries me.
Yeah, the fact that Miami was willing to cut a guy who has had 26 sacks his past two seasons doesn’t make a lot of sense. Obviously there has to be something else going on there beyond his play. I wouldn’t want to deal with that and the fact that he is 33.
by packallday555 on Feb 15, 2010 3:21 PM CST up reply actions
FA
I agree that they won’t keep a high price LB just for the purpose of special teams, they will cut their losses and sign a lower priced LB or LB’s that can be contributors on D and on special teams. As far as Hawk, maybe it is time to see what kinda of trade bait he would be. I’m not so sure that Bishop wouldn’t be a suitable replacement for a year and really see what he can do.
trade bait
Hawk has NO trade value whatsoever! He is due to make 4.6 this year and his play isn’t reflective of that salary. Next year his cap number jumps to rediculous levels and no team will trade for him w/ those salary numbers. Heck even the Packers are just playing out the string w/ him. There is NO WAY Hawk is a Packer in ‘11, the Packers will release him long before that salary number hits. THey don’t really want to pay him the 4.6M, but will get what they can from him before releasing him.
He will/would be a really attractive player as a FA though… W/o those salary requirements, he would have no shortage of teams interested in signing him to a quality offer!
I think he would be bait to a team running a 4-3 defense. He was always a good OLB for us in our old system. He looked out of place in 2008 at MLB after Barnett went down, and he looked slow at times at ILB for us. But he was good in 2006-07 and 2007-08 at OLB with over 100 tackles this year. He would be a good OLB in a 4-3 system and I find it hard to believe that a team who is looking to improve on defense wouldn’t be willing to give up something for him.
by packallday555 on Feb 15, 2010 3:28 PM CST up reply actions
Putting Hawk out there alone
without any quality linebacker is a disaster waiting to happen.
The Packers should keep him because he IS a solid tackler and doesn’t make ridiculous breaks on the ball (although that can change in a heartbeat).
I can’t believe you got me to say that, Strohman… His play isn’t “reflective” of 4.6 mil this year? Well, seeing as he hasn’t played a down yet, I’d say its just a little bit early to make that assumption.
Besides, with any sort of trade, there’s ALWAYS the chance we look like the New York Jets after they jettisoned James Farrior: total idiots.
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Feb 15, 2010 4:54 PM CST up reply actions
Wait a second...
Not quite sure what you’re getting at. I don’t think Hawk has no value, its just that his play to date isn’t up to the 4.6M he is going to make this year. And I don’t think he’s a bust either… He is a solid LB and will continue to be, but has his play been what was expected of the #5 overall pick? No, I would say he has been a disappointment, not a bust.
I do think as a FA he would be a coveted commodity. He is a player you can definitely win with… I just don’t think a team is going to step up and offer anything for him at his salary and level of play to date… Which has been good, not great.
Well, look at some of the weird contracts given around the league to put Hawk's in perspective
Javon Walker 6 year, 55 million dollar contract: There were a TON of escalators in this deal, but it was pretty stupid considering how Walker did after he signed that deal. Raiders make the first of several bad signings
DeAngelo Hall 7 year. 70 million dollar contract: Again, the Raiders make a horrid deal for an unknown commodity and cut him loose midway through the season
Tommy Kelly 7 year, 50+ million dollar contract: ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. Again, the Raiders make the deal.
That’s just the Raiders…
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Feb 15, 2010 9:55 PM CST up reply actions
4.6 million is NOT a lot of money with those contracts in mind...
Heck, some teams might consider Hawk’s contract BELOW market value…
What I’m trying to say is that if Hawk isn’t up to 4.6 million with his play last year, what on earth would the man need to do for Packer fans to feel he earned it? Set a season record for INTs? Fumble Recoveries? Sacks? He can sure tackle…
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Feb 15, 2010 10:01 PM CST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
