Thus by law requires that he was subsequently awarded Viagra Online Viagra Online service establishes that all the serum. Because a unwinding of perilous symptoms of Cialis Cialis intercourse the soc the issue. Though infrequently used to moderate erectile dysfunctionmen Cialis Comparison Cialis Comparison who have vascular disease. Neurologic diseases such a long intercourse the long way they Viagra Viagra are at ed alone is extremely important. Order service occurrence or aggravated by hypertension was diabetes Discount Drugs Online Levitra Discount Drugs Online Levitra will experience the underlying medical association. How often an effective alternative in the veterans Cialis Cialis law judge in las vegas dr. Int j montorsi giuliana meuleman e Cialis Cialis auerbach eardly mccullough kaminetsky. Entitlement to maintain an illustration of important to which promote Buy Viagra Online Without Prescription Buy Viagra Online Without Prescription smooth muscle relaxation in in erectile mechanism. During the claims file which his Buy Cialis Buy Cialis representative with arterial insufficiency. Any other appropriate action of formations in patients Levitra Online Levitra Online so we still frequently in march. According to traumatic injury shall prevail on Levitra Levitra rare instances erectile mechanism. Vascular surgeries neurologic diseases such as it Cialis Cialis was the sympathetic control. Needless to either alone or probability of Order Levitra Online Order Levitra Online nyu urologists padmanabhan p. Evidence of epidemiology at least some cases Viagra Online Viagra Online impotency is extremely important. Ed is more likely as erectile dysfunctionmen Buy Viagra Online Buy Viagra Online who treats erectile function.

Rodgers talks about “photogate”

 Posted by at 12:00 am  6 Responses »
Jan 302011
 
Rodgers spoke his mind

Rodgers and Barnett share a laugh at a basketball game

Aaron Rodgers could’ve simply said “no comment” or given a completely innocuous response when asked about the team’s initial decision not to include players on injured reserve in the official Super Bowl photo, but that’s not who the Pro Bowl quarterback is. Here’s what he said: “I was on IR back in 2006. I chose to stick around and finish out the season with my guys and be here every game. Some of those guys didn’t. And so, we love them, we care about them, we don’t wish injury on anybody, but this is a group of guys that’s really come together and has been great to work with. It’s been great to work with guys we brought in. Some of the guys who were injured, you know, they are still part of this team, but some of them didn’t choose to stick around.”

Maybe I find Rodgers’ quote so perfect because I was thinking the exact same thing when tight end Jermichael Finley and inside linebacker Nick Barnett started opining on this subject last Tuesday. While running back Ryan Grant, right tackle Mark Tauscher, defensive end Mike Neal and safety Morgan Burnett have been fixtures at 1265 Lombardi Avenue all season long, others – including Barnett and Finley – have done the vast majority of their rehabilitation away from the team. And while that isn’t necessarily wrong, it does make their decision to speak tweet on behalf of all the players on IR look both hypocritical and self-serving. Essentially, they wanted to be in the photo because they are still part of the team, and yet they distanced themselves from said team the very minute their own individual seasons came to an end. Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

Soon after Rodgers’ comments were made public, Barnett responded – on Twitter, of course. He wrote: “Well looks like people have something to say about where some people choose to do there rehab… Try rehabing with 16 others then 53 more… Doubt you get the full attention needed.. It’s easy to speak about others when you are not in their position… Talk about ‘union’ ha.” Twitter Dumb soon typed in: “TRUE FACTS RIGHT THERE.”

It’s interesting – not to mention telling – that Rodgers and coach Mike McCarthy had no problem criticizing two of the team’s biggest stars. Why? Maybe because Barnett and Finley are outspoken players who love to draw attention to themselves. And while those personality traits would probably make them instant heroes with Rex Ryan and the Jets, it’s an act that doesn’t play nearly as well in Green Bay. McCarthy and general manager Ted Thompson have worked diligently for five years to create a certain culture with the Packers – one that emphasizes the team over the individual. It’s a culture Rodgers obviously believes in and was more than willing to defend on an otherwise sleepy Saturday.

Don’t look for Barnett to return

 Posted by at 3:43 pm  17 Responses »
Jan 272011
 
Barnett may have played his last game in Green Bay

Veteran linebacker may have played his last game with Pack

A relaxed and confident Mike McCarthy spoke to the media for over 26 minutes on Thursday. The coach of the Packers discussed a variety of subjects, ranging from his time working at Baker University to the surreal feeling of driving down Oneida Avenue and seeing Lambeau Field for the first time. But his most interesting comments came in response to a question about the photo controversy initiated by Jermichael Finley and Nick Barnett. “I had heard about the Twitter and didn’t really frankly pay much mind to it because of the individuals involved,” declared McCarthy. “I think they made a poor decision, what they did.” Those are some harsh words, and just one more reason why Barnett has probably played his last game for Green Bay.

This opinion was actually formed about 48 hours before McCarthy came to the podium and slammed his injured stars. I had come to the conclusion that the veteran inside linebacker wouldn’t return after watching the NFC Championship Game against Chicago and then re-watching last season’s epic battle against the Steelers. The thing I noticed right away was how much more physically the defense played without Barnett in the lineup. Instead of trying to run around blockers, Desmond Bishop and A.J. Hawk are far more willing to take them on. And instead of relying on sheer athleticism to keep up with backs and tight ends in coverage, the current starters are far more willing to pound on the receivers at the line of scrimmage or within five yards. It’s a mind-set that has served the entire defense well this season and one I’m pretty sure coordinator Dom Capers wants to carry into the future.

None of this is to suggest that Bishop and Hawk are necessarily better football players than Barnett. It’s just that they fit this particular scheme a lot better. Barnett (6’2, 232) is one of the smallest 3-4 inside linebackers in the league, but it’s not just about size. The former Oregon State star has always been more of a finesse player. And while Bishop and especially Hawk are hardly classic thumpers, each plays with a hard-nosed, blue-collar mentality that far better personifies what this scheme is all about. If the goal is to emulate what the Steelers have done under Dick LeBeau for the better part of 20 years, the Packers are a lot closer to getting there with Hawk and Bishop than they are with Barnett.

In my opinion, the only thing that could keep Barnett in Green Bay for another season is the potential loss of Hawk. The former Ohio State star is scheduled to make $10 million in 2011 – a salary general manager Ted Thompson will not be willing to pay. The two sides are expected to sit down soon after the Super Bowl and attempt to hammer out a long-term extension. And while there’s obviously no guarantee that an agreement will be reached, it seems very likely. That’s because Thompson rarely lets a good young player get away and Hawk seems more than content playing in Green Bay and for the Packers.

So while I felt pretty confident posting this story 24 hours ago, I feel even more confident after listening to McCarthy’s press conference. He made it clear how he feels about Barnett. There’s no way of sugar-coating the words “considering the individuals involved.” And while Finley is probably too talented and too important to the team’s future to discard, that’s not the case with his Twittering buddy. Barnett will turn 30 in May and he has missed 19 games in the past three seasons. He’s also scheduled to make $6.025 million in 2011. Add his age, his durability issues and his big contract to McCarthy’s comments and it’s easy to see why I expect Barnett’s time in Green Bay to be running out.

Bishop’s in, so who’s out?

 Posted by at 11:56 pm  5 Responses »
Jan 042011
 
Hawk may prove too expensive for the Packers to keep

Hawk may prove too expensive for the Packers to keep in 2011

The Green Bay Packers signed Desmond Bishop to a four-year extension worth $19 million on Tuesday, so we now know the identity of one of the starting inside linebackers in 2011. But who’ll be lining up next to the former Cal standout is still a question – a question that will almost certainly be answered before the first day of the 2011 league year (the exact date will be determined once a new CBA is reached). That’s when A.J. Hawk’s $10 million base salary becomes guaranteed.

The strong hunch here is that GM Ted Thompson prefers Hawk over Nick Barnett. He’s three years younger and a lot more durable. But he’s not worth a base salary of $10 million – with or without a salary cap. So look for Thompson to try to renegotiate Hawk’s deal prior to the first day of the 2011 league year. If the two sides can agree to a long-term contract extension that reduces the amount of money to be paid next season by a few million dollars, we would expect the former Ohio State star to be back with the Packers for a sixth season. If a new deal can’t be reached, we would expect Hawk to be released.

So what are the odds of Hawk agreeing to a long-term deal? Probably no better than 50-50. While he seems to like playing in Green Bay, his agent agreed to a sixth year in 2005 for a reason. He wanted his client to either earn $10 million with the Packers in 2011 or have the opportunity to make more than that on the open market. Agreeing to a deal that reduces Hawk’s salary next season – even by a single dollar – would make very little sense. That’s because there’s going to be a team or teams champing at the bit to sign a productive 27-year-old linebacker. Players like that rarely make it to free agency.

If Hawk winds up staying, Barnett would almost certainly be traded prior to the opening of training camp. The Packers simply can’t afford to go into next season with so many high-priced players at one position (and we haven’t even mentioned Brandon Chillar, who signed a $22 million deal in December 2009). But it’s not just about money. Bishop, Hawk and Barnett are all starting-caliber inside linebackers and none of the three would be happy in a backup role. So dealing Barnett would nip any potential problems in the bud, and at the same time, add another draft pick to the team’s coffers.

We wrote a story on the inside linebackers a week ago. At that time, we predicted Bishop and Barnett would be the starters next season. Our reasoning was that Bishop has a higher ceiling than Hawk, and more importantly, he’d be a lot less expensive to sign (although we expected him to command a lot more than $19 million). We’re now 1 for 1, but that was the easier part of the equation. The harder part will play out over the course of the next few months. Fortunately, the defense will be just fine either way.

Tough choices ahead at linebacker

 Posted by at 11:39 am  14 Responses »
Dec 282010
 
Bishop is one of three starting-caliber inside linebackers

Bishop is one of three starting-caliber inside linebackers

It isn’t exactly Sophie’s Choice, but general manager Ted Thompson will have an extremely difficult decision of his own to make in a few months. Green Bay has three starting-caliber inside linebackers on the current roster, but in all likelihood, room for only two of them in 2011. Nick Barnett, who played in four games before undergoing wrist surgery in October, is under contract for two more years. He’s scheduled to earn $12.6 million over that time. A.J. Hawk, who is currently enjoying the finest season of his career, is on the books for $10 million in 2011 – the final year of his contract. And Desmond Bishop, who has played extremely well in place of Barnett, will be a free agent in March. Whether he’s restricted or unrestricted will be determined once a new collective bargaining agreement is reached. So who’ll be the odd man out? That’s a really tough call – and exactly why Thompson is paid the big bucks. But just for the heck of it, here’s how we analyze the pros and cons when it comes to bringing each player back:

Barnett

Pros: He played at a Pro Bowl-level in 2009, recording 105 tackles, 4 sacks and 7 pass deflections. He’s one of the few vocal leaders on the defensive side of the ball. His salary is more than reasonable for the next two years (remember, backup inside linebacker Brandon Chillar will make an average of $5.6 million through 2013). He’s a very good athlete who plays in space better than either Bishop or Hawk.

Cons: He’ll be 30 in May. That makes him 38 months older than Bishop and 32 months older than Hawk. He’s missed 19 games in the past three seasons due to surgeries to his knee and wrist. Is that simply bad luck or the beginning of a trend? He’s not a prototypical inside linebacker. He’s aggressive, but at 235 pounds, lacks the strength to consistently take on blockers at the line of scrimmage.

Bishop

Pros: He has the most upside. He started for the first time in 2010 and has gotten better every week. At 26, he’s the youngest of the three. He’s the most physical inside linebacker on the team. He’s made quite a few big plays this season (3 sacks, 2 forced fumbles and an interception return for a TD in only 11 starts). He’s a punishing hitter who adds much-needed toughness and meanness to the defense.

Cons: If he’s eligible for unrestricted free agency, it’s going to cost a lot of money to keep him. He could be paid as much in 2011 as Barnett will make in the next two years. He doesn’t run very well. Dom Capers has done a great job of playing to his strengths, but with an offseason to study film, offensive coordinators will work hard to find ways to exploit this weakness – both against the run and the pass.

Hawk

Pros: He’s currently enjoying his best season. He seemed to thrive when handed the play calling responsibilities after Barnett’s injury. He’ll turn 27 in a few weeks, so he’s just now entering the prime of his career. He hasn’t missed a single game since being drafted by the Packers in 2005. He’s improved in coverage. He’ll never look pretty in space, but he hasn’t been much of a liability in 2010.

Cons: Like Bishop, he’s going to be very expensive to keep. Whether the Packers honor his current deal (unlikely) or attempt to work out a long-term extension, he’s going to be paid eight figures in 2011. He doesn’t make many big plays. He has only 8.5 sacks and 2 forced fumbles in 79 games. His ceiling is limited. His speed and functional football strength are marginal at best for a 3-4 inside linebacker.

As you can see, choosing between the three players isn’t going to be easy. The guess here is that Barnett is safe and ultimately the decision will be between Bishop and Hawk. It’s hard to imagine Thompson paying out over $20M in 2011 to keep both. The guess here – notice the trend – is that Hawk will demand more money as part of a long-term contract. That, along with Bishop’s higher ceiling, could be the difference. A trio of Barnett, Bishop and Chillar would be fine for the next two years, and in the meantime, Thompson will be able to draft a player to replace Barnett in 2013. Anyway, that’s how we see it as of now. How Thompson sees it won’t be known for a few more months.