Should Packers Get In On Connor Barwin?

5480 7
Connor Barwin

No one, it seems, wants Connor Barwin. Well, that’s not true. The free agent outside linebacker says he has interest from several teams. Apparently that interest is not from the right team, however.

Barwin posted 34 tackles and five sacks during what will be his lone season with the Los Angeles Rams in 2017. Even though he’s 31, it appears Barwin can still supply some pass rush.

Who could use some pass rush depth? The Green Bay Packers.

Linebacker Clay Matthews was less than thrilled when asked about the guys behind him, calling the Packers’ depth at outside linebacker “not that great.”

Behind Matthews and Nick Perry — both injury-prone — is a group that includes Kyler Fackrell, Vince Biegel and Reggie Gilbert. Two of those guys we actually like — Biegel and Gilbert — but they’re both green.

So should the Packers get in on Barwin?

It certainly couldn’t hurt.

Barwin cost the Rams only $3.5 million in 2017. The Packers probably won’t pay that much, but it’s doubtful Barwin would demand or command that much.

There you go. He wants to go somewhere he has a shot at the Super Bowl.

The Packers a legitimate shot at making a run so long as Aaron Rodgers stays healthy. The team’s defense appears to be much-improved. However, the one area that wasn’t addressed is edge rusher.

Instead, the Packers beefed up their defensive line with Muhammad Wilkerson. It’s thought that the plan is to generate the pass rush up front. And that may have to be what happens when Matthews and Perry inevitably get injured.

Packers general manager Brian Gutekunst is said to be looking at adding players continually. Unless he’s turned off by the failed move of adding Ahmad Brooks (just 1.5 sacks) last year, Gutekunst would be wise to take a look at Barwin.

It’s a low-risk move.

Do the Packers really want to rely on Kyler Fackrell as a potential starter?

About The Author

Joseph is a fiction writer when he isn't doing this. In his spare time he likes to do manly things like drink beer and procreate.

7 Comments on "Should Packers Get In On Connor Barwin?"

  1. Savage57

    This is the no-brainers of no brainers. The Packers have dick at edge, and that includes the two starting remoras. Matthews and Perry.

    Sign this guy at $3M and sleep easy the rest of the season instead of dog-walking to the shitter every night at 3AM for four months.

  2. B Rad

    If they don’t pick up someone, Fackrell will be starting a few games this year. There’s no way Matthews and Perry stay healthy for every game.

  3. PF4L

    Problem #1…The Packers usually give raises to players they sign that other teams don’t want.

    Problem #2…Rodgers isn’t enough to make a run at the Super Bowl, even if healthy. This is the ultimate team game, even Jordan needed help on a 5 man starting roster.

    Problem #3…This defense has questions almost across the board, 4 years in and were still hoping to solidify the cornerback positions. With Burnett gone, now the safety position is a big question mark. Wilkerson has talked big about being back with Pettine, but the reality is, the Jets dumped a shit load of cash on Wilkerson’s lap, and he rewarded them with having two dog shit seasons. This dude is hardly a sure thing.

    On the flip side………Yea, if you can get Barwin for a decent contract, he’d be a decent add for depth and rotation. Also if Wilkerson could play half as good as his 2015 season you’d have something there. plus if Perry and Mathews could give you 13 games each and be fairly healthy then you’d have something. You’d have a better front 7 which automatically make’s the secondary look and perform better.

    Problem #4…..That’s a lot of “ifs”.

  4. PFF rated Barwin as the 103rd rated edge rusher last year out of 106. PFF rated Barwin as poor. Maybe Barwin struggled in his first year as a 3-4 edge rusher? Wade Phillips usually turns guys loose so that should have helped Barwin. Add in the Rams defensive tackles. I would think Barwin should have been much better than 103rd out of 106. Maybe PFF just screwed up or maybe Barwin’s age is showing.

    I didn’t see Barwin play last year. I did see Ahmad Brooks and it would be good to see an upgrade. Just as a comparison Brooks last year was rated as average by PFF. Brooks was 68th. I’m not sold on Barwin.

    • PF4L

      Strictly a depth guy. I know he said he has some offers, but i’m not so sure i’m buying that. You only hear that from him it seems. It’s damn near training camp, teams don’t seem to be knocking down his door. Vet minimum if you go there.

      He’s another guy like Brooks, T Willy, and Wilkerson whose best seasons are behind him. I’m all for adding some experienced depth (we need that). But at the same time, they need to produce something on the field, not just be a body. Barwin did have more sacks and tackles last season than Brooks, but without looking it up i’m guessing Barwin had a lot more snaps.

      We had these same articles here last off season with Barwin on this site.

  5. Sal

    I can’t read that guy’s name without hearing it in the voice of Kim Jong Il in ‘Team America’

    “You are worfress, Arec Barwin!”

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *