Nick Barnett placed on PUP list

[Senser81]

Chillar is nothing but an average starter in this league. He is decent in coverage because he doesn't get completely burned. The Pack brought Chillar in mostly because of his coverage skills and their inability to cover a Tight End in 2007.

What on earth are you talking about? Chillar was far below average as a starter for the Rams, and he was awful during his short starting stint with Green Bay. The Rams cut him last year, and the Packers picked him up during the season. You must be making this stuff up, because its not like the Packers went out of their way to acquire Chillar. They needed a body at LB after Barnett got hurt, so they signed Chillar because he's better than corpse.

He is terrible in coverage. Look at his stat line against the Saints this year, a game in which Chillar single-handedly made Drew Brees a 5000-yard passer. He had 0 INTs, 0 passes defensed, and 10 solo tackles! Meaning he managed to tackle the receiver 10 times after he caught it.

[MrBill]

He is terrible in coverage. Look at his stat line against the Saints this year, a game in which Chillar single-handedly made Drew Brees a 5000-yard passer. He had 0 INTs, 0 passes defensed, and 10 solo tackles! Meaning he managed to tackle the receiver 10 times after he caught it.

Please do not remind me of that game. I bought 2 roundtrip tickets to New Orleans and 4 tickets (carried my brother and his gf for his birthday present) from a broker to see the Packers on MNF. To make it worse, I missed out on my FFL playoffs by .03 of a point after Rodgers was benched after his 3rd INT in the game and not allowed to get any trash time yards.

The whole Packers defense sucked that night but Chillar was exceptional in the level of suckiness attained that night.

[bucky]

Compared to the other guys in the NFL, or just the other guys on the Packers? If its just the other guys on the Packers, then I'd somewhat agree that Chillar is decent...

Compared to the other guys on the Packers. That hurts to say as a Packer fan. Sorry for not being clearer.

because those guys suck in coverage.

Yes they do. I praying it was the scheme. Maybe they'll be better under the new DC. Can't be much worse in coverage.

Our safety's had a hard time covering TE's as well.

[bucky]

its not like the Packers went out of their way to acquire Chillar. They needed a body at LB after Barnett got hurt, so they signed Chillar because he's better than corpse.

I could be wrong, but I thought GB picked up Chillar well before Barnett got hurt. Right or wrong, it doesn't change that fact that our LB's and Safety's couldn't cover a TE.

[RainboUnicorn]

What on earth are you talking about? Chillar was far below average as a starter for the Rams, and he was awful during his short starting stint with Green Bay. The Rams cut him last year, and the Packers picked him up during the season. You must be making this stuff up, because its not like the Packers went out of their way to acquire Chillar. They needed a body at LB after Barnett got hurt, so they signed Chillar because he's better than corpse.

He is terrible in coverage. Look at his stat line against the Saints this year, a game in which Chillar single-handedly made Drew Brees a 5000-yard passer. He had 0 INTs, 0 passes defensed, and 10 solo tackles! Meaning he managed to tackle the receiver 10 times after he caught it.

You're basing him being shitty off of one game?

Lemme guess, this is the same guy who thinks Aaron Rodgers is the sole reason for the Packers going 6-10.

Senser, Chillar was picked up in free agency before the season started.

[Senser81]

You're basing him being shitty off of one game?

No, he was shitty in other games, too. Thanks.

[MrBill]

Chillar was TT's lone FA pickup last year and was on the roster and was brought in before Barnett's injury. IIRC, he was brought in because Hawk was such a liability in pass coverage. I thought he had more bad games than good but he did have occasional flashes of athleticism.

[Senser81]

Chillar was our best coverage LB last year and yeah he was definitely brought in LONG before Barnett got injured. (he's not even a 4-3 MLB)He's not 'just a body.' he was looking like he was going to win the starting SOLB job in training camp last year before Poppinga really stepped up and separated himself.

I'm not saying he's awesome, but he's a pretty good cover-LB that typically saw a lot of playing time in nickel defense and against teams who had good receiving TEs. He's something that the team really lacked in 2007.

Chillar didn't even play at the beginning of the season, so your comment that he was going to win the starting SOLB job is ridiculous, and your other comment that Chillar "definitely" was brought in "LONG" before Barnett got injured is equally ridiculous in its assertiveness. Does that mean Chillar is actually decent because he was brought in LONG before Barnett got injured?

The only thing Chillar has going for him in pass coverage is his height. He is not athletic, he evidently was very confused by the Packers cover schemes in that he had no idea where his help was coming from, and he is absolutely horrendous in man-to-man coverage.

Do you actually watch the games, or do you just like to naysay? We are talking about the same guy, right? The guy who got cut from the worst defensive team in the NFL (Rams)?

[MrBill]

We can't bash Chillar too much because to do so would open the door for the discussion of whether or not TT is in over his head as GM...

[Senser81]

We can't bash Chillar too much because to do so would open the door for the discussion of whether or not TT is in over his head as GM...

Well, when arguably your best defensive player (Barnett) in midseason, I don't think its an easy task to replace the guy. I'm just hoping that Chillar doesn't see as much of the field this year, but other people are making him out to be the second coming of Jack Lambert. I don't see how anyone could blame the GM for acquiring Chillar...its just that he's not very good and didn't play all that well last year.

[Senser81]

You were saying he only had 10 solo tackles and said that meant he tackled a receiver 10 times after they caught the ball. Saying that while completely ignoring the fact that teams still ran the ball while he was on the field.

Did you watch the Packers-Saints game??! No. Thanks.

[Senser81]

I was at the Packers- Saints game.

And I don't really like to use that as a good measuring stick considering the Saints diced up most every team with their passing attack. Brees passed for over 5,000 yards. We were one of the teams that got destroyed by Brees on those WRs, it's not that big of a deal.

Thats nice, but my comment was in response to your comment that Chillar's 0-0-10-0 statline was indicative of him making a bunch of solo tackles on Saints running plays.

The Packers loss to the Saints was a huge deal, because at that time the Packers were 5-5 and coming off of a monster win over the Bears. That Saints loss put the Packers into a 5-game tailspin that ended their playoff hopes.

Its amazing how you have all this first-hand knowledge, yet you are wrong about everything.

[Senser81]

I misread your comment about Chillar's statline, I misinterpreted it as his season statline.

Yeah, his season statline was 10 solo tackles, 0 assists, 0 INTs, 0 passes defensed.

Does anyone here have a brain??

[Senser81]

Either way, I'm tired of re-living 2008.

How could you be tired of re-living 2008 when you have such a cloudy memory of that season?

[Senser81]

Whatever man, you're just kind of being a dick while avoiding all the arguments that counter what you've said.

Have fun.

Whatever man, you're just kind of being a dick while avoiding all the arguments that counter what you've said.

Have fun.