Conner Barwin

[cheech]

Barwin would be a good fit in GB. It comes down to cash. Is he looking to strike it big? If he's looking for a good chance to get a ring, GB is the place. Plus, he needs to be in a 3/4, which fit him better than a 4/3.

We play 2-4-5 80% of the time.  Now, if his trouble with the 4-3 was lining up in a 3 point stance that's one thing.  But if he's another Fackrell who won't be able to set the edge in the 2-4-5 I'd be hesitant to pay him starter $. 

[dannobanano]

Barwin would be a good fit in GB. It comes down to cash. Is he looking to strike it big? If he's looking for a good chance to get a ring, GB is the place. Plus, he needs to be in a 3/4, which fit him better than a 4/3.

We play 2-4-5 80% of the time.  Now, if his trouble with the 4-3 was lining up in a 3 point stance that's one thing.  But if he's another Fackrell who won't be able to set the edge in the 2-4-5 I'd be hesitant to pay him starter $.

In his first 3 years at Philly, while they were running a 3-4, Barwin totaled 177 tackles/26.5 sacks/22 PDF/1 INT/4 FF
When they switched to a 4-3 his one season numbers were 34 tackles/5 sacks/2 PDF/ 1 FF

He's a true 3-4 Edge player.

[cheech]

I guess my question is: can he hold up in the running game when Dom plays nickel against the Cowboys and Redskins?  Is he an every down player for us, or is he a rotational guy who could come on for Datone Jones?

[Foundling]

Don't forget 6'5", 245lb Kyler Fackrell, ready to make a year 2 jump.

I think that Barwin could be a good model/mentor for Fackrell. His path to success in this league is likely in becoming a player similar to Barwin.

[JPPlaya]

Barwin would be a good fit in GB. It comes down to cash. Is he looking to strike it big? If he's looking for a good chance to get a ring, GB is the place. Plus, he needs to be in a 3/4, which fit him better than a 4/3.

We play 2-4-5 80% of the time.  Now, if his trouble with the 4-3 was lining up in a 3 point stance that's one thing.  But if he's another Fackrell who won't be able to set the edge in the 2-4-5 I'd be hesitant to pay him starter $.

2-4-5 is simply 3-4 Nickel. The concepts and techniques are 3-4 concepts. We just play in a "sub package" much more than the base.

[dannobanano]

Barwin would be a good fit in GB. It comes down to cash. Is he looking to strike it big? If he's looking for a good chance to get a ring, GB is the place. Plus, he needs to be in a 3/4, which fit him better than a 4/3.

These could be the 2 biggest factors that bring him to GB.
He's made some good money from his Philly contract. A fair (but not cheap) contract could seal the deal (JMHO).
Plus, he's a great community minded man. Has done a lot of things for the city of Philadelphia. His team and community leadership would be big added pluses if he were to come to GB.

[dannobanano]

I guess my question is: can he hold up in the running game when Dom plays nickel against the Cowboys and Redskins?  Is he an every down player for us, or is he a rotational guy who could come on for Datone Jones?

http://sjmagazine.net/june-2015/connor-barwin

signed with the Eagles as an unrestricted free agent prior to the 2013 season, Chip Kelly’s first as the head coach here. The Eagles were changing from a 4-3 defense – four down linemen and three linebackers – to a 3-4, and they needed a versatile linebacker who could play tough against the running game – setting the edge, is the football term – and who could drop back and cover receivers in the passing game and in the process rush the quarterback when called upon.

[cheech]

Barwin would be a good fit in GB. It comes down to cash. Is he looking to strike it big? If he's looking for a good chance to get a ring, GB is the place. Plus, he needs to be in a 3/4, which fit him better than a 4/3.

We play 2-4-5 80% of the time.  Now, if his trouble with the 4-3 was lining up in a 3 point stance that's one thing.  But if he's another Fackrell who won't be able to set the edge in the 2-4-5 I'd be hesitant to pay him starter $.

2-4-5 is simply 3-4 Nickel. The concepts and techniques are 3-4 concepts. We just play in a "sub package" much more than the base.

This is just wrong.  The 2-4-5 looks a hell of a lot more like a 4-3 defense than 3-4. 


I've never been able to figure out how to insert an image properly, but this link shows what our 2-4-5 formation looks like. (Edit: Well, look here.  I did it!) Quite often we'll see the Elephant on the strong side line up in a 3 point stance.  The technique and responsibilities of an EDGE player in a 2-4-5 are essentially the same of 4-3 DE.


http://insidethepylon.com/film-study/film-study-nfl/defense-film-study-nfl/2014/11/29/packers-passing-preview-defending-high-low-opposite/

[cheech]

I guess my question is: can he hold up in the running game when Dom plays nickel against the Cowboys and Redskins?  Is he an every down player for us, or is he a rotational guy who could come on for Datone Jones?

http://sjmagazine.net/june-2015/connor-barwin

signed with the Eagles as an unrestricted free agent prior to the 2013 season, Chip Kelly’s first as the head coach here. The Eagles were changing from a 4-3 defense – four down linemen and three linebackers – to a 3-4, and they needed a versatile linebacker who could play tough against the running game – setting the edge, is the football term – and who could drop back and cover receivers in the passing game and in the process rush the quarterback when called upon.

That answers it then! 

[Leader]

I guess my question is: can he hold up in the running game when Dom plays nickel against the Cowboys and Redskins?  Is he an every down player for us, or is he a rotational guy who could come on for Datone Jones?

If I'm on the sideline and need to choose between sending Datone or Conner into the game - Barwin would get the nod. Simply because he's productive/disruptive. Too often, you've got to search the "intangibles" file to find Datone's contributions. Nothing against the guy (necessarily) and I'm not against bringing him back but I dont think he's given us a whole lot of on the field "bang" for a #1 pick.

[Foundling]

Barwin would be a good fit in GB. It comes down to cash. Is he looking to strike it big? If he's looking for a good chance to get a ring, GB is the place. Plus, he needs to be in a 3/4, which fit him better than a 4/3.

We play 2-4-5 80% of the time.  Now, if his trouble with the 4-3 was lining up in a 3 point stance that's one thing.  But if he's another Fackrell who won't be able to set the edge in the 2-4-5 I'd be hesitant to pay him starter $.

The Eagles likewise played a lot of nickel even when they were 3-4 base. Barwin was fine. The issue came in when he was supposed to play down end in a base 4-3.

But I do agree that they need to be prudent in how much money they give him. He should be paid like a role player pass rusher (~6-7M) rather than starter money (~10M).

[JPPlaya]

Barwin would be a good fit in GB. It comes down to cash. Is he looking to strike it big? If he's looking for a good chance to get a ring, GB is the place. Plus, he needs to be in a 3/4, which fit him better than a 4/3.

We play 2-4-5 80% of the time.  Now, if his trouble with the 4-3 was lining up in a 3 point stance that's one thing.  But if he's another Fackrell who won't be able to set the edge in the 2-4-5 I'd be hesitant to pay him starter $.

2-4-5 is simply 3-4 Nickel. The concepts and techniques are 3-4 concepts. We just play in a "sub package" much more than the base.

This is just wrong.  The 2-4-5 looks a hell of a lot more like a 4-3 defense than 3-4. 


I've never been able to figure out how to insert an image properly, but this link shows what our 2-4-5 formation looks like. (Edit: Well, look here.  I did it!) Quite often we'll see the Elephant on the strong side line up in a 3 point stance.  The technique and responsibilities of an EDGE player in a 2-4-5 are essentially the same of 4-3 DE.


http://insidethepylon.com/film-study/film-study-nfl/defense-film-study-nfl/2014/11/29/packers-passing-preview-defending-high-low-opposite/

OK

This is NICKEL 3-4 DEFENSE.

The elephant position is somewhat unique to our defense, but defenses arent "cookie cutter". They dont say " Ok guys, we are a 3-4 team so at all times we need 3 defensive linemen, 4 linebackers and 4 defensive backs on the field at all times." They play in different roles.

What you are looking at here to over simplify it. are 3 down linemen, 3 LBs by position and 5 DBs (which is where NICKEL comes from). Now you see the DB at the bottom of the screen (29, I believe). He is a DB by position, but in this set he is functioning as a LB. We put him in that spot in order to get faster more athletic guys on the field and have better match ups.

Now we also run a version of this with our dime group. Where both guys on the edge are standing up, 2 down linemen. Then one LB in the middle and 6 DBs on the field.  Two of those DBs are in the slot and essentially functioning as LBs. This is a a little more like a 4-3, but again these arent cookie cutter defenses.

In Barwin's case, he would almost exclusively be asked to play with his hand up and out in space. Not with his hand down on the line. Perry and Jones if re-signed will probably play the elephant role this year. They are more of that DL/OLB Hybrid while Barwin and Clay are more of the true OLB role.

[Foundling]

I think maybe the confusion is that a 2-4-5 or even a 4-2-5 isn't really specifically "3-4 nickel" or "4-3 nickel." It's just nickel defense. Both schemes will employ those formations.

[cheech]

In Barwin's case, he would almost exclusively be asked to play with his hand up and out in space. Not with his hand down on the line. Perry and Jones if re-signed will probably play the elephant role this year. They are more of that DL/OLB Hybrid while Barwin and Clay are more of the true OLB role.

Can you tell me the difference in assignments that a OLB in a 2-4-5 and a DE in 4-3 nickel have? 

There is no difference. 

The only reason Dom's 2-4-5 nickel defense has survived vs. heavy fronts is by him playing larger Elephant players at the OLB position.  (Perry, D. Jones, Peppers.)  Smaller OLB's have struggled to find playing time because they can't hold up in the running game.  Matthews, Elliott, and Fackrell were liabilities in that capacity. 

The reason I asked the question was simple.  If Barwin struggled because he wasn't used to lining up in a 3 point stance that is something that he won't have to worry about in GB.  They can clearly do both - although lining up in the 2 point stance is much more common.  But, if he struggled in Philly's 4-3 defense because he was asked to set the edge vs. Tackles as a DE instead of setting the edge vs. a TE in a 3-4, those same struggles will follow him to GB because that's precisely what he'll be asked to do 80% of the time he's on the field. 

[SSG]

I'd love to see Barwin in Green Bay for an affordable deal.  He's a strong, high energy player that is relentless in his pass rush.  I'm not sure how great he is at setting the edge in run defense but he'd more than replace Peppers as a pass rusher IMO.  Worst case, he's a huge upgrade over Fackrell who looked physically overwhelmed most of last year as he was getting tossed around by tackles like he was a 50 lb tackling dummy.

Right now, we're scary thin on the edge so any experienced depth will help.