Binky battle: Barwin v. Matthews

[ctpatsfan77]

Box, PATSNUTme: I found this picture of the two of you, but who's who?

 

[PATSNUTme]

ok....lets do some comparisons......

experience: advantage goes to matthews although they each have the same amount of starting experience on defense

physical: barwin is a bit bigger, stronger, and faster but most of the numbers were pretty close........my big difference here is that barwin is naturally bigger while matthews had to work himself to get to his size...credit goes to matthews for doing the work, but a) there's alot of that size enhancement over the career of USC LB's b) I'll take the guy who was pretty much born with it....I would be concerned with matthews as he would need to get bigger to be effective in the manner a first rounder should be.....he might already be maxed out

scheme: barwin stood up for quite a few plays while at DE meaning he has the ability to read........but also has experience with his hand on the ground and has proven to at least have a chance against an OL 1-on-1......matthews does not engage blocks well and could be solved by a TE where barwin looks to be already beyond the normal abilities of a TE.....

misdirection is a weakness for matthews as he overpursues and gets taken out of plays.......one of barwin's strengths is the ability to read things like reverses and bootlegs.

right now, I think the only weakness barwin has is lack of experience in coverage.........but that said, he's got plenty of time at TE and stands to understand route reading pretty easily

as for special teams, their values seem to be about equal

I already like barwin better if they were available at the same pick...the idea of getting barwin at 34 is a no brainer versus matthews at 23.....in my opinion

That is the one that gets me. It implies that he used roids to get where he is and there is no proof of it. It's the second time in a couple of days that has been implied.

I had a friend that I grew up with. He was tall but skinny as a post. His father was a big man and his mother was a tall woman.

My friend played basketball in HS and at 6-5 he was laughed at for being so skinny. He got pushed around a lot. He went to college and by his Jr. year he had natually grown into his body and grew an inch but put on 50 + pounds. He ended up being the guy who was pushing other players around- he made all conference.

When I read about Matthews coming in between 166 & 180 and now growing to 245, it reminded me of my friend. Some people do grow later than others. It doesn't mean they are on juice.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Box, PATSNUTme: I found this picture of the two of you, but who's who?

I'm the good looking one.

 

[DW Toys]

Barwin, regardless of where we are picking. He has the highest upside of any linebacker (perhaps even including Curry, definitely including Maualuga) and great intangibles. Moreover, he has the size that we covet on the edge. Matthews will need to bulk up, and unlike Shawn Crable it's not clear that his frame can bear the load.

Mayo, Good points but i worry about two things. Is Barwin, Mamula? How does a 166 lb walk on become 246 lbs overnite? That is a juicy story.
Seriously, Barwin is being overhyped to the max. I like the kid. He is just starting to play defense. He is super athletic but does he have the experience that BB will warrant for a starting NFL OLB? I think this Larry English is in the same boat. I agree, Barwin has a great upside but he makes me nervous. Matttews was my binkie till I got the "steroid chills". I think BB uses him as ILB anyway.
I would not mind all three. If it an OLB, It is Barwin or English not Matthews. My theory, as if anyone gives a da** is they go for Maualuga or "little animal" and let TBC, Redd and Crable (Guyton?) fight it out as pass russ OLB on that left side. Why bring TBC back? Maybe BB thought his 4.5 sacks two years ago was not an aberration. I think they go run stuffer type ILB like Rey Maualuga in the Ted Johnson fashion.

Here is another opinion. I think they trade out of #23 anyway and collect yet another second and third rounder....The bait? Josh Freeman. He is not an early round one pick, so the desperate QB needers will pick from the other two QBs Stafford and Sanchez and the second tier of QB needy clubs will take their non-QB top choice now and hope to trade back in (see Browns).

At #23 it is too high for Matthews or Barwin. I think we get some takers at #23. I think the Lions would be better served waiting for a QB and taking Curry or Jason Smith @ #1 and getting the best defensive player on the board at #20 like perhaps Laurinaitis. If we move down to say the Detroit second round pick @ #33 and their pick #82 in the third round from the Cowboys, the NFL "points board" says that this is an exact match. I think Tampa or the Niners might want to get a shot at Freemen but the Lions are the fit.

Now the Lions have three first rounders and they have CAP space. They get a top three QB and can groom him under the resigned Culpepper. The new regime has the young core that starts their deal out on a newer piece of paper.

We take the #33 (right before #34) and draft a Barwin or English. We get a third rounder and I feel that is a better pick value than a reach @#23.

Here is another idea. It appears that Michael Johnson DE from GT, 6' 6" and 266 lbs, 17.5 TFL and 9 Sacks in 2008. He has 4.49 speed on his pro day. 23 reps and a 39" vertical. At the combine he proved he could play in space and drop in coverage. Mayock slams him for inconsistency, but I see this kid as a OLB in waiting in the Jason Taylor fashion. If we want to talk upside. I was not a big fan of his but the more you read he had a good career and was not a one year wonder. He played ST as well. This kid might be the sleeper #33 or #34 pick? And no, he is not my binkie. I like Delmas and Casey as BB type picks. Thoughts?
DW Toys

 

[patchick]

That is the one that gets me. It implies that he used roids to get where he is and there is no proof of it. It's the second time in a couple of days that has been implied.

FWIW, for all that I've talked about Matthews bulking up, I never meant to imply steroids. I've just been assuming he's already done the get-as-big-and-strong-as-possible bit in an NFL-caliber training program. So "he is what he is."

Since this is the battle of the binkies, I'll put it this way: at the Senior Bowl weigh-in ogle fest, observers oohed and aahed over how muscular and cut Matthews looked, but said Barwin looked "disappointingly average" in his muscle definition. Then Barwin put up better combine numbers carrying 15 lbs. more weight. That led me to conclude that Barwin probably has the ideal natural size for a Pats OLB, and Matthews probably doesn't.

 

[DW Toys]

FWIW, for all that I've talked about Matthews bulking up, I never meant to imply steroids. I've just been assuming he's already done the get-as-big-and-strong-as-possible bit in an NFL-caliber training program. So "he is what he is."

Since this is the battle of the binkies, I'll put it this way: at the Senior Bowl weigh-in ogle fest, observers oohed and aahed over how muscular and cut Matthews looked, but said Barwin looked "disappointingly average" in his muscle definition. Then Barwin put up better combine numbers carrying 15 lbs. more weight. That led me to conclude that Barwin probably has the ideal natural size for a Pats OLB, and Matthews probably doesn't.

Good point.
DW Toys

 

[BradyManny]

Barwin had 11 sacks in his first year playing defense. Matthews had 4.5 last season. Matthews is regarded as an "elite pass rusher" in this draft. WTF, I say to that. I know he had a ridic 10 yd split, but I'll take production over combine #s.

 

[PATSNUTme]

FWIW, for all that I've talked about Matthews bulking up, I never meant to imply steroids. I've just been assuming he's already done the get-as-big-and-strong-as-possible bit in an NFL-caliber training program. So "he is what he is."

Since this is the battle of the binkies, I'll put it this way: at the Senior Bowl weigh-in ogle fest, observers oohed and aahed over how muscular and cut Matthews looked, but said Barwin looked "disappointingly average" in his muscle definition. Then Barwin put up better combine numbers carrying 15 lbs. more weight. That led me to conclude that Barwin probably has the ideal natural size for a Pats OLB, and Matthews probably doesn't.

There were a couple of post that implied strongly that roids had to be involved, none of which were yours.

My point was that his father, uncle, and grandfather were all big men. So I do not find it strange that he grew naturally considering his gene pool. I don't know a thing about his mothers side of the family and if the men were thin a then added weight as they went into their 20's.

As I pointed out with my HS friend, this does happen. In fact there were other guys who got taller and bigger after 18 in my HS class.

 

[WhiZa]

Barwin had 11 sacks in his first year playing defense. Matthews had 4.5 last season. Matthews is regarded as an "elite pass rusher" in this draft. WTF, I say to that. I know he had a ridic 10 yd split, but I'll take production over combine #s.

Comparing Barwin's sacks (or production even) to Matthews is off base. Matthews didn't even start until mid way through the season.

 

[BradyManny]

Comparing Barwin's sacks (or production even) to Matthews is off base. Matthews didn't even start until mid way through the season.

My response would be "so what?" His lack of playing time isn't a reason to draft him.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

That is the one that gets me. It implies that he used roids to get where he is and there is no proof of it. It's the second time in a couple of days that has been implied.

I had a friend that I grew up with. He was tall but skinny as a post. His father was a big man and his mother was a tall woman.

My friend played basketball in HS and at 6-5 he was laughed at for being so skinny. He got pushed around a lot. He went to college and by his Jr. year he had natually grown into his body and grew an inch but put on 50 + pounds. He ended up being the guy who was pushing other players around- he made all conference.

When I read about Matthews coming in between 166 & 180 and now growing to 245, it reminded me of my friend. Some people do grow later than others. It doesn't mean they are on juice.

forget the roids...........even naturally, getting to 240 was alot of work for him.........what are the chances of him being able to get to 255-260 which is where a guy needs to be in this scheme needs to be at OLB.....my only point is that barwin is already there, and already more athletic than matthews

I didn't mean to take anything away from matthews other than my notion that he is already 'maxed out' and may not be able to get any bigger......he and cushing are identical this way

 

[WhiZa]

My response would be "so what?" His lack of playing time isn't a reason to draft him.

But it would explain his lack of production. If we take the games they started their production becomes closer
Barwin 11 sacks/14 games - .79 sacks a game
Matthews 4.5 sacks/8 games - .57 sacks a game

Also the different positions should be considered as OLB doesn't go after the ball every down like a DE would.

 

[WhiZa]

forget the roids...........even naturally, getting to 240 was alot of work for him.........what are the chances of him being able to get to 255-260 which is where a guy needs to be in this scheme needs to be at OLB.....my only point is that barwin is already there, and already more athletic than matthews

I didn't mean to take anything away from matthews other than my notion that he is already 'maxed out' and may not be able to get any bigger......he and cushing are identical this way

I think most players are maxed out by the time they reach the NFL. Trying to put on any more weight would likely decrease their performance.

 

[mayoclinic]

FWIW, for all that I've talked about Matthews bulking up, I never meant to imply steroids. I've just been assuming he's already done the get-as-big-and-strong-as-possible bit in an NFL-caliber training program. So "he is what he is."

Since this is the battle of the binkies, I'll put it this way: at the Senior Bowl weigh-in ogle fest, observers oohed and aahed over how muscular and cut Matthews looked, but said Barwin looked "disappointingly average" in his muscle definition. Then Barwin put up better combine numbers carrying 15 lbs. more weight. That led me to conclude that Barwin probably has the ideal natural size for a Pats OLB, and Matthews probably doesn't.

Exactly right. I think Matthews deserves a lot of credit for maxing out his ability. Barwin hasn't come close to his ceiling yet.

 

[MetalBleachers]

Okay, a few things...

VJCPatriot: Damn your lingerie model. She makes me pause when should be scrolling faster to catch up on posts!

Whoever thinks Guyton will move to OLB is mistaken. He's better in the middle running around linemen. He has little upper-body strength (his weakest quality) and can't fight out of TE blocks, much less OT's.

In the Barwin vs. Matthews debate, we have to look forward. Barwin became the Big East sack leader in his first year on defense. He's 255 pounds without "maxing out," as most of us agree Matthews has at 240. So: who will be the more impressive OLB in two years?

I admire Matthews and think he'll thrive in a 4-3. Barwin's the choice here (even though I think BB will take an OL at 23).

Okay. Glad that's settled.

 

[JoeShmoe]

Whats happened to Maybin?

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Whats happened to Maybin?

His diaper needed changing, but he should be back soon.

 

[BradyManny]

But it would explain his lack of production. If we take the games they started their production becomes closer
Barwin 11 sacks/14 games - .79 sacks a game
Matthews 4.5 sacks/8 games - .57 sacks a game

Also the different positions should be considered as OLB doesn't go after the ball every down like a DE would.

The only game log I found was ESPN's, it said Matthews had 2 sacks in his first two games, which was before he was starting - which would go to my point, that we shouldn't take PT into consideration too much. Granted, ESPN game logs for college are generally unreliable...so if anyone actually saw those two games, please correct me if necessary.

Anyway, I like Matthews alright, just don't think that when watching he stuck out amongst the other LBs on the team. If his stock hadn't exploded so much in such a fast time, maybe I'd be more enthusiastic about him. I know the same can be said about Barwin, but with Barwin, he just looks more athletic, explosive and fluid.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

The only game log I found was ESPN's, it said Matthews had 2 sacks in his first two games, which was before he was starting - which would go to my point, that we shouldn't take PT into consideration too much. Granted, ESPN game logs for college are generally unreliable...so if anyone actually saw those two games, please correct me if necessary.

Anyway, I like Matthews alright, just don't think that when watching he stuck out amongst the other LBs on the team. If his stock hadn't exploded so much in such a fast time, maybe I'd be more enthusiastic about him. I know the same can be said about Barwin, but with Barwin, he just looks more athletic, explosive and fluid.

Try this:

NCAA DIVISION I FOOTBALL

 

[BradyManny]

Try this:

NCAA DIVISION I FOOTBALL

Thanks for the link. ESPN has the same stats, so maybe ESPN was actually accurate. Meaning Matthews only had one solo sack plus 3 assisted sacks in his last 11 games...