Nick Barnett Placed On IR; Packers Sign Montgomery
Linebacker Nick Barnett's season is over. Replacing him on the 53-man roster is defensive lineman Michael Montgomery.
The Green Bay Packers have placed linebacker Nick Barnett on injured reserve, in effect ending his season.
To replace Barnett on the 53-man roster, the Packers have re-signed defensive lineman Michael Montgomery.
Barnett originally hurt his wrist in Week 4 against the Detroit Lions. He left the game and later returned to finish the game with a cast.
However, Barnett was withheld from last week's game against the Washington Redskins.
Barnett had surgery to repair his wrist on Tuesday, and it was thought that he may be able to return late in the season. But like the Ryan Grant decision earlier in the season, the Packers have decided they can't wait that long.
The addition of Montgomery can be seen a hedge against the recent injuries to fellow defensive linemen Ryan Pickett and Mike Neal. Pickett hurt his ankle early in the Redskins game. As for Neal, he also suffered a shoulder injury in the Washington game but fought it.
Neal practiced on the first day of preparation for the Miami Dolphins on Wednesday but was subsequently held out of Thursday's practice. His status for this Sunday is unknown.
Montgomery was originally drafted by the Packers in 2005 and played in Green Bay five season through 2009, including eight starts.
Not a good fit for Green Bay's 3-4 defense, Montgomery was cut before the start of the 2010 regular season and signed with divisional rival Minnesota Vikings. Montgomery has since been cut by the Vikings.
The signing of Montgomery could be viewed as a short-term solution. Following this Sunday's game against the Dolphins, the Packers host the Vikings next week and could be, at least in part, using Montgomery for his knowledge of his former employer.
It's not inconceivable to think that Montgomery could be cut when Pickett and Neal get healthy in addition to making room for the players on the Physically Unable to Perform (PUP) list–Al Harris, Atari Bigby and James Starks–who are eligible to return to action starting next week.
Comments (39)
October 15, 2010 at 10:38 am
............................................................................................................................................................................
October 15, 2010 at 10:38 am
Ugh.
October 15, 2010 at 10:45 am
Espected, wasn't it?
October 15, 2010 at 10:46 am
Expected even *pleading for an edit function*
October 15, 2010 at 10:52 am
Barnett to IR, yes.
Re-signing Montgomery, no.
October 15, 2010 at 10:50 am
Come on, Mike Montgomery. Anyone but him. I would of rather signed a punter to play DL than Montgomery. He better be released when we start getting healty. I would of thought they would of signed a outside linebacker for depth. Oh well
October 15, 2010 at 11:05 am
i'm not too worried about barnett as long as bishop plays like he did last week. neal and pickett MUST get healthy!!!
October 15, 2010 at 11:08 am
This might bode well for Finley. There was definitely an opportunity to make a joint announcement here...
October 15, 2010 at 11:18 am
Mike Montgomery? Seriously!? He was, is, and will be useless.
What's next? (Insert Bhawoh Jue joke here.)
October 15, 2010 at 11:19 am
I'm just glad the Saints grabbed Matt Giordano before the Pack had a chance to.
October 15, 2010 at 11:37 am
A+ comment
October 15, 2010 at 11:27 am
Who else is out there that they could have brought in and, if necessary (which most likely it is), immediately made a game day active? Name a better alternative. He is a warm body who knows the system and can rat out the Vikings for next weeks game. I don't entirely hate it at all.
October 15, 2010 at 11:48 am
It's actually the smartest move GB could have made ..... Anyone else would have been sorting through the defensive playbook for the next couple weeks before even being remotely effective on the field ...... Someone who can walk without a limp is needed for the Miami game ......
PackerAaron
October 15, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Like Ronald Talley?
October 16, 2010 at 07:24 am
" Montgomery probably was signed to contribute on special teams as much if not more than on defense. In five seasons he played 723 snaps on special teams and 1,153 on defense. "
Might as well go with experience in a stopgap situation .......
October 15, 2010 at 11:38 am
Do you think the Barnett decision was influenced by how well Bishop played?
October 15, 2010 at 11:57 am
No. You can't wait a minimum of ten weeks for big mouth Barnett to MAYBE return. They needed the roster spot. Of course, then TT signs (for the third time) the ultimate scrub Mike Montgomery (ugggg). This way, Montgomery can be cut to make room for Harrell next summer and the merry-go-round continues.;)
And, don't kid yourselves, Finley's next to go on IR. The NFL needs an in-season IR like baseball.
October 15, 2010 at 11:59 am
I agree that 10 weeks is too long to wait for Barnett. But I think that's true because of the play of Bishop.
Finley, on the other hand, is far more valuable than Barnett and I think the Pack will and should let him rehab.
October 15, 2010 at 12:27 pm
It depends on who else goes down re: Finley.
I really don't think Bishop's play (while heartening) had anything connection to the Barnett decision. We're talking TEN weeks and then Barnett knocking the rust off for a few weeks. You may be able to carry one roster spot, but with the ongoing injury epidemic, even that is problematic. We'll see.
October 15, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Or an increase in roster size from 53 to 60 to go with the 18-game schedule .......
October 15, 2010 at 12:05 pm
In response to: "The NFL needs an in-season IR like baseball."
October 15, 2010 at 05:23 pm
So we can have more fullbacks and tight ends
October 15, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Montgomery made it down to the final cuts on a team with one of the deepest D lines in the league after lasting 5 seasons here. Can he really be the ULTIMATE scrub?? Desperate times call for desperate measures, and I am afraid these are indeed desperate times. We need bodies NOW and he has experience in our system. Do we really think TT found better alternatives out there and just passed on them?? He may be a lot of things, but his ability to evaluate talent is fairly evident. Again, who could they possibly have brought in that would fit our situation and immediate needs that is a lot better than Montgomery? We shouldn't just throw out critisism without offering a better option.
PackerAaron
October 15, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Sorry davy, but its not the job of any commenter here to "offer a better option" - that's Thompson's job. People have every right to bitch about the signing of Montgomery - because they've seen him play and he flat out sucks.
October 15, 2010 at 02:22 pm
And he'll be gone again as soon as bigby harris and starks come back.
October 15, 2010 at 06:05 pm
It may not be their job, but a viable option instead of the constant whining makes their post much more credible .....
davyjones ..... Keep up the good fight ...... Optimism always feels better than the ill-informed negativism that permeates this blog.
PackerAaron
October 16, 2010 at 07:03 am
Exactly - it's an option, not a requirement.
October 16, 2010 at 11:00 am
Aaron, I have great admiration for your opinion and the work you do here, but I have to respectfully disagree on this one. If a guy I work with looks at my work and says, "That is wrong", My natural response is going to be, "OK, what is right then?". If he can't give me a better option, then we are stuck with the way I've done it. I agree Montgomery has been decidedly unimpressive, but I simply can't believe TT combed through all the available options, and said, "hmmm...I think I'll go with the 5th or 8th or 10th best option out there. There are a number of guys out there way better than Montgomery, but I think I'll re-sign him just because I have a soft spot for him".
Point to consider. JS reports that Montgomery met with Slocum. He has played on "all the core units in his 5 years" with the team. Clearly had to be a consideration and shows me once again that, more often than not, there is more to the picture than what I am aware of.
October 15, 2010 at 11:59 am
To some extent. They were clearly sitting on their hands there for a week to evaluate their options. Bishop's solid play might have pushed it over the edge. Another factor might have been Chillar's health improving.
As an aside, I am excited for Desmond. He was a big star at Cal when I was a season-ticket holder. We used to chant: "DES-mond BISH-op!" (think of the tune of "OV-er-RAT-ed"). Good memories.
October 15, 2010 at 12:14 pm
And the beat goes on...
October 15, 2010 at 01:04 pm
Boy it's hard to imagine Montgomery coming in and making a difference. I suppose they can use him to spell the other DLs, and that is much needed. But he's going to be a one-trick pony. He simply won't have time to absorb more in the next two days, even if he was with the team last year. Past that never was good at much. They won't be able to use anything other than a vanilla defense while he's on the field.
October 15, 2010 at 01:44 pm
You people have no clue what you're talking about.
With Kuhn playing RB, we NEED another FB. Enters Mike Montgomery.
October 15, 2010 at 02:15 pm
Yeah..but they'll make Montgomery into a half back by week 9. Not that it matters, he won't get the ball.
October 15, 2010 at 01:51 pm
yup.
let's all get upset about the new guy who's gonna be on the team for a whopping 2 weeks.
relax and enjoy.
get as healthy as you can this week (i'm talking to you mathews, chillar, pickett, neal).
if you take a loss v. the 'fins - so be it.
the new season starts with the 'queens.
CHECK OUT THE NEWLY POSITIVE RICKEYBOBBY!
THIS FEELS SOOOOO MUCH BETTER!
GO PACK GO!
October 15, 2010 at 02:29 pm
Who the hell are you and what have you done with RickyBobby?
I think you just like to disagree with everyone...
October 15, 2010 at 03:34 pm
So another OFF/DEF/ST player? Didn't work for Havner.
October 15, 2010 at 04:03 pm
no, i just have trouble sorting out all the voices in my head.
the positive one just happens to be the loudest one this week.
October 15, 2010 at 07:38 pm
once again the front office shows they are too predictable in their roster moves. they lack the WOW factor
October 16, 2010 at 11:08 am
I'm not going to try and sell you that Mike Montgomery is some sort of game changing move, but in response to your "Lacking WOW factor"....
Let me remind you that the Washington Redskins for the better part of a decade were the leaders in "WOW factor" moves....