Back to the future with the 3-4 defense

[KYPack]

The Packers have announced the switch from the 4-3 defense played by former DC Bob Sanders to the 3-4 defense under new coordinator Dom Capers. For older Packer fans this brought a feeling of déjà vu. This is not the first time a Packer team has made that switch. After the '79 season, HC Bart Starr fired long time Packer player and coach, DC Hawg Hanner, and hired John Meyer as the new DC after the Packer defense ranked among the league's worst groups. With Meyer came the installation of the 3-4 defense. The 3-4 was the rage in the NFL in '80. Sixteen of the league's 28 teams were running the scheme by the '80 season. By 1985, the 3-4 reached it's high water mark. 23 of the NFL's 28 teams were using the 3-4 as their base D in '85.

NFL teams have been using the 3-4 for years. The 3-4 basically started in the 70's, with Houston and New England generally credited for being the innovators and implementers that first used it in '74. Teams go back and forth since that time from the 3-4 to the 4-3 for a variety of reasons

The Packers would use the 3-4 as the base of their defense from 1980 until Fritz Shurmur re-instated the 4-3 defense in the off-season of '94. ('93 saw the addition of Reggie White and you could point to the '93 season as the end of the strict 3-4 scheme under Ray Rhodes as DC).

The Pack would have some success with the 3-4 in the 14 or so years that they ran the scheme. In general, the Packers finished in the middle of the league's 28 teams while using a 3-4. The first year of using 3 down lineman was a disaster. GB was actually worse defensively that they had been the previous season. Then the team became acclimated to the new base D and made good improvement. The '81 & '82 clubs finished 9th, then 8th respectively out of 28 on D .

Then came the nightmare year, '83. The Starr-lead '83 team was an offensive juggernaut. Courageous QB Lynn Dickey was a tough field general with a strong arm and a ton of guts. His targets were All-Pro caliber receivers, who were fast and smart. Paul Coffman, James Lofton, and John Jefferson combined for 26 touchdowns and were threats to break long ones any time they caught a ball. The running backs were also solid pass catchers as well as good running backs. Even the fourth string back and Rat poster, Harlan Huckleby was good for 4 touchdowns as the Packers racked up 429 points. The problem was the defense. Meyer's boys were last in the NFL. 28th out of 28 teams, allowing 50 touchdowns, 6,403 yards (400.2 yds/GM), and giving up 439 points. They were one of the leagues top offenses with the leagues worst D. Starr's 9th year as coach was his last as the 8-8 record wasn't enough to off-set that horrible 3-4 defense. With Starr went DC John Meyer.

The Packers would stay with the 3-4 for approximately 10 more seasons. Forrest Gregg had used a 3-4 in his previous coaching seasons as had Gregg successor, Lindy Infante. Enter Mike Holmgren who had coached at SF, who used a 4-3. Most observers expected Holmgren to junk the 3-4, which he eventually did.

So the 3-4 has been around for 35 years or so,with the Packers employing it previously for 13-14 years in the past. Now we go back to the future by putting in a 3-4. The 3-4 has been wildly popular and almost phased out of the league over the last 35 years. It's usage ebbs and wanes.

Two factors seem in play to account for the rise and fall of the 3-4. Coaching and personnel availability. Teams begin to win playing a 3-4. The NFL is a copycat league and other teams adopt a 3-4, hiring assistants from the successful teams. Those teams begin to compete for 3-4 compatible players. The 3-4 type defenders get in short supply and teams draft and use 4-3 players. It comes and it goes. The Packers want to become aggressive and apply pressure on defense. So they change to a 3-4. I'm worried that we may be on the wrong side of the curve. Other teams are looking at making the same change. Will 3-4 players (mainly NT's and pass rushing LB's) be in more demand and dry up faster than in previous years?

One would hope not as the Packers go back to their earlier 3-4 days.

[rbaloha1]

Recall the Bruce Clark debacle.

Ray Rhodes as DC actually had much success with the 3-4. The roster was filled with 3-4 players like Paup, Bennett, Jurkovich, White, etc.

Wish the same could be said about the current roster.

[KYPack]

Recall the Bruce Clark debacle.

Ray Rhodes as DC actually had much success with the 3-4. The roster was filled with 3-4 players like Paup, Bennett, Jurkovich, White, etc.

Wish the same could be said about the current roster.

Right. I know Ray-Ray played some 3-4, but also put in 4-3, mainly to give Reggie an area of comfort. Ray was kind of the transition guy, IIRC. Of course Fritz was basically the full-blown 4-3 and everything else, guy

[Waldo]

I disagree that personnel is a reason to make this switch. I would wager that less than 20% of good players are better suited to one scheme or the other. The mediocre players are the ones that are better suited to one or the other, and there is near an unlimited supply of those.

Each defense has its rare pieces. A 4-3 is a defense of stars, comprised of several superplayers. 2 pass rushers that are stout against the run, 3 instinctive linebackers that can cover well, and generally uses 2 specialist DT's, a fattie that can stop the run, and a big that can both rush the passer and stop the run. Those 5 superplayers, the LB's and DE's, are hard to come by and in short supply.

OTOH the 3-4 is more of a specialists defense, especially a 1 gap. 2 pass rushers are needed, but stout against the run is not as much of a necessity. Only 2 instinctive LB's that can cover are needed. It needs a good run stopping fattie, which 4-3's can skimp on a bit, and 2 bigs that can stop the run and rush, but they don't need to be elite at either.

The spectrum of players that fit a 3-4 is so much wider than a 4-3. You almost never read scouting reports that player X is better suited to a 4-3 than 3-4. The few guys that is true for, the Coles and Montgomeries, aren't very good anyway. The 3-4 has its guys that don't have much place in a 4-3, quick undersized pass rushers that are a liability in base sets, huge athletic bigs not good enough to rush from the edge in a 4-3 and not stout enough to play DT in a 4-3. There is a good supply of those guys though. Just going through the draft it appears that you are better suited running a 3-4 instead of a 4-3, except at NT. Those guys are as rare as QB's. The 4-3 is like running the wildcat, getting a bunch of great players otherwise so that you can skimp on the QB (NT).

[Patler]

Then came the nightmare year, '83. The Starr-lead '83 team was an offensive juggernaut. Courageous QB Lynn Dickey was a tough field general with a strong arm and a ton of guts. His targets were All-Pro caliber receivers, who were fast and smart. Paul Coffman, James Lofton, and John Jefferson combined for 26 touchdowns and were threats to break long ones any time they caught a ball. The running backs were also solid pass catchers as well as good running backs. Even the fourth string back and Rat poster, Harlan Huckleby was good for 4 touchdowns as the Packers racked up 429 points. The problem was the defense. Meyer's boys were last in the NFL. 28th out of 28 teams, allowing 50 touchdowns, 6,403 yards (400.2 yds/GM), and giving up 439 points. They were one of the leagues top offenses with the leagues worst D. Starr's 9th year as coach was his last as the 8-8 record wasn't enough to off-set that horrible 3-4 defense. With Starr went DC John Meyer.

Ah, the 1983 Packers! Perhaps a nightmare defensively, but from a shear excitement perspective, one of the more entertaining years to watch.

They gave up 38 points, and won the game.
They gave up 47 points, and won.
They scored 41 points, but lost the game.
They had a blowout win 55-14.

With just a decent defense, this could have been a pretty good team. Of course, even when the Packers were scoring a lot of points, the defense got very little rest, because the Packers usually scored quite quickly. Lofton averaged a whopping 22.4 yds/rec., with 1300 yards on just 58 receptions. Coffman averaged 15.1, Jefferson 14.6 both with over 50 receptions. Even Gerry Ellis averaged 11.6 on 52 receptions.

Exciting games, entertaining games.

[cpk1994]

Then came the nightmare year, '83. The Starr-lead '83 team was an offensive juggernaut. Courageous QB Lynn Dickey was a tough field general with a strong arm and a ton of guts. His targets were All-Pro caliber receivers, who were fast and smart. Paul Coffman, James Lofton, and John Jefferson combined for 26 touchdowns and were threats to break long ones any time they caught a ball. The running backs were also solid pass catchers as well as good running backs. Even the fourth string back and Rat poster, Harlan Huckleby was good for 4 touchdowns as the Packers racked up 429 points. The problem was the defense. Meyer's boys were last in the NFL. 28th out of 28 teams, allowing 50 touchdowns, 6,403 yards (400.2 yds/GM), and giving up 439 points. They were one of the leagues top offenses with the leagues worst D. Starr's 9th year as coach was his last as the 8-8 record wasn't enough to off-set that horrible 3-4 defense. With Starr went DC John Meyer.

Ah, the 1983 Packers! Perhaps a nightmare defensively, but from a shear excitement perspective, one of the more entertaining years to watch.

They gave up 38 points, and won the game.
They gave up 47 points, and won.
They scored 41 points, but lost the game.
They had a blowout win 55-14.

With just a decent defense, this could have been a pretty good team. Of course, even when the Packers were scoring a lot of points, the defense got very little rest, because the Packers usually scored quite quickly. Lofton averaged a whopping 22.4 yds/rec., with 1300 yards on just 58 receptions. Coffman averaged 15.1, Jefferson 14.6 both with over 50 receptions. Even Gerry Ellis averaged 11.6 on 52 receptions.

Exciting games, entertaining games.I remember that year. Especially the 47 point game you mention. MNF 48-47 over the Redskins. I was only 8 at the time, but it was the first MNF game I was allowed to stay up and watch to conclusion.

[KYPack]

Then came the nightmare year, '83. The Starr-lead '83 team was an offensive juggernaut. Courageous QB Lynn Dickey was a tough field general with a strong arm and a ton of guts. His targets were All-Pro caliber receivers, who were fast and smart. Paul Coffman, James Lofton, and John Jefferson combined for 26 touchdowns and were threats to break long ones any time they caught a ball. The running backs were also solid pass catchers as well as good running backs. Even the fourth string back and Rat poster, Harlan Huckleby was good for 4 touchdowns as the Packers racked up 429 points. The problem was the defense. Meyer's boys were last in the NFL. 28th out of 28 teams, allowing 50 touchdowns, 6,403 yards (400.2 yds/GM), and giving up 439 points. They were one of the leagues top offenses with the leagues worst D. Starr's 9th year as coach was his last as the 8-8 record wasn't enough to off-set that horrible 3-4 defense. With Starr went DC John Meyer.

Ah, the 1983 Packers! Perhaps a nightmare defensively, but from a shear excitement perspective, one of the more entertaining years to watch.

They gave up 38 points, and won the game.
They gave up 47 points, and won.
They scored 41 points, but lost the game.
They had a blowout win 55-14.

With just a decent defense, this could have been a pretty good team. Of course, even when the Packers were scoring a lot of points, the defense got very little rest, because the Packers usually scored quite quickly. Lofton averaged a whopping 22.4 yds/rec., with 1300 yards on just 58 receptions. Coffman averaged 15.1, Jefferson 14.6 both with over 50 receptions. Even Gerry Ellis averaged 11.6 on 52 receptions.

Exciting games, entertaining games.

The Monday Nite game against the Skins was the classic. Up and down all night long. Moseley missed a field goal at the gun to give the Packers a 48-47 win. The Pack went to overtime 4 times that season, losing 3 of 'em. A poor defense would have given them the the division. The Lions eaked out the Central title with a 9-7 record. A half ass D and the breaks evening out, the Pack would have been 11-5, 12-4 quite handily.

Bart Starr got hosed by management. Judge Robert Parins was functioning as the GM in those days. He allowed Mike Butler, a decent DE, to leap to the USFL for peanuts, after assuring Starr he's get him signed. That and the loss of several defensive starters saddled the Pack with one of the worst defenses in modern history.

The D was so bad, it took as fairly decent coaching job by Starr to even get to 8-8.

[KYPack]

I disagree that personnel is a reason to make this switch. I would wager that less than 20% of good players are better suited to one scheme or the other. The mediocre players are the ones that are better suited to one or the other, and there is near an unlimited supply of those.

Each defense has its rare pieces. A 4-3 is a defense of stars, comprised of several superplayers. 2 pass rushers that are stout against the run, 3 instinctive linebackers that can cover well, and generally uses 2 specialist DT's, a fattie that can stop the run, and a big that can both rush the passer and stop the run. Those 5 superplayers, the LB's and DE's, are hard to come by and in short supply.

OTOH the 3-4 is more of a specialists defense, especially a 1 gap. 2 pass rushers are needed, but stout against the run is not as much of a necessity. Only 2 instinctive LB's that can cover are needed. It needs a good run stopping fattie, which 4-3's can skimp on a bit, and 2 bigs that can stop the run and rush, but they don't need to be elite at either.

The spectrum of players that fit a 3-4 is so much wider than a 4-3. You almost never read scouting reports that player X is better suited to a 4-3 than 3-4. The few guys that is true for, the Coles and Montgomeries, aren't very good anyway. The 3-4 has its guys that don't have much place in a 4-3, quick undersized pass rushers that are a liability in base sets, huge athletic bigs not good enough to rush from the edge in a 4-3 and not stout enough to play DT in a 4-3. There is a good supply of those guys though. Just going through the draft it appears that you are better suited running a 3-4 instead of a 4-3, except at NT. Those guys are as rare as QB's. The 4-3 is like running the wildcat, getting a bunch of great players otherwise so that you can skimp on the QB (NT).

Yeah, I know

And that's a personnel decision. The Packers think the 3-4 will be an aggressive scheme for their personnel. So they got a 3-4 coach and now will try to acquire those kinds of guys you name. They also feel there is more of 'em available and they can get their hands on them easier than they could find guys to flesh out a 4-3. Personnel is a huge factor in making the switch.

Not only the guys you have, but your chances of obtaining the guys you need.

[Patler]

The Packers think the 3-4 will be an aggressive scheme for their personnel. So they got a 3-4 coach and now will try to acquire those kinds of guys you name. They also feel there is more of 'em available and they can get their hands on them easier than they could find guys to flesh out a 4-3. Personnel is a huge factor in making the switch.

Not only the guys you have, but your chances of obtaining the guys you need.

How long have the Packers been trying to put together a front 7 for the 4-3 without real good success? They seem to always be about 2 or 3 guys short. Even when it looked like they might have the starters, insufficient depth showed as soon as injuries cropped up. If there are in fact more players available for the 3-4, its worth the chance.

Sometimes success in sports is accomplished by doing what is less the norm, even if it really isn't "new".

[rbaloha1]

Agreed the draft is easier to acquire players to fit the 3-4 scheme. This years draft is filled with the right type of players. Expect a heavy dose of defensive palyers.

Again the current defense imo does not possess the right type of players for the 3-4. Some of the players should be traded or released.

For example: trading Cullen Jenkins and Brady Poppinga could be a viable options. Releasing Montgomery and Cole is advisable.

Guys like Thompson, Hunter, DL, Jolly are going to be fighting for roster spots.

[texaspackerbacker]

I tend to agree with what Waldo said above--that personnel doesn't have that much to do with the change, and that the great majority of players aren't overly suited for one and not the other.

It boils down to a matter of preference for the coaching staff on going to the 3-4. I've gotten psyched up about the change mainly because of the inherent effectiveness against the run--which was a clear weakness for the Packers last season. I don't like the idea that maybe (although not necessarily) the Packers will use more zone and less man coverage, but Capers is saying the right stuff--talking about flexibility and disguising coverage, so hopefully there won't be too much deviation, and what deviation there is will work.

What I also see as true, though, is that you can generally get more mileage out of lesser players with the 3-4. We're talking about Jamie Thompson and Jason Hunter--who basically weren't adequate in the 4-3. as good players--some say possible stars in the 3-4. We have two high quality ILBs, but arguably, less skill is required there too in the 3-4, as you have two to go sideline to sideline instead of just one. The DE position takes significantly less athleticism in the 3-4, and also is a haven for 4-3 "tweeners". Safety also should be easier to play, as I would assume with four LBs, they would have slightly less responsibility in run stopping.

I do not foresee a bad period early in the season while the players get used to the new scheme. That might be the case if coaches were learning right along with the players, but with Capers and his crew of 3-4 vets, the transition should be quick.

[Waldo]

Agreed the draft is easier to acquire players to fit the 3-4 scheme. This years draft is filled with the right type of players. Expect a heavy dose of defensive palyers.

Again the current defense imo does not possess the right type of players for the 3-4. Some of the players should be traded or released.

For example: trading Cullen Jenkins and Brady Poppinga could be a viable options. Releasing Montgomery and Cole is advisable.

Guys like Thompson, Hunter, DL, Jolly are going to be fighting for roster spots.

???

Jenkins is probably the best fit on the team. Poppinga is a perfect fit at Jack LB and is a good OLB backup.

Hunter is a MUCH better fit for the 3-4, Thompson was listed as a 3-4 OLB by many sources on draft day. Both are undersized in a 4-3 at end, but perfect fits at 3-4 OLB.

Cole and Montgomery aren't very good 4-3 players either. Heck Pickett can outrun Monty, not good for a DE, Cole is so slow it is downright absurd, they aren't very good in any scheme.

[Farley Face]

Agreed the draft is easier to acquire players to fit the 3-4 scheme. This years draft is filled with the right type of players. Expect a heavy dose of defensive palyers.

Again the current defense imo does not possess the right type of players for the 3-4. Some of the players should be traded or released.

For example: trading Cullen Jenkins and Brady Poppinga could be a viable options. Releasing Montgomery and Cole is advisable.

Guys like Thompson, Hunter, DL, Jolly are going to be fighting for roster spots.

???

Jenkins is probably the best fit on the team. Poppinga is a perfect fit at Jack LB and is a good OLB backup.

Hunter is a MUCH better fit for the 3-4, Thompson was listed as a 3-4 OLB by many sources on draft day. Both are undersized in a 4-3 at end, but perfect fits at 3-4 OLB.

Cole and Montgomery aren't very good 4-3 players either. Heck Pickett can outrun Monty, not good for a DE, Cole is so slow it is downright absurd, they aren't very good in any scheme.

Is the "Jack" LB you reference one of the inside spots? I've read ideally you want one of the ILBs to be a thumper and one to be more of a sideline to sideline guy. I see Bishop emerging in that thumper role, but I say that with no knowledge of the coverage role his projected spot will be asked to play in our new 3-4. Which one were you slotting Pop for?

(I agree with your Cole assessment by the way.)

Thanks,

FF

[Waldo]

Unlike the 4-3 where there is a nice naming convention, the LB names tend to vary somewhat from scheme to scheme in the 3-4. I've heard sam, mike, will, elephant, or sam, ted, mike, will, or sam, jack, mike, and will, depends o the coach. But yes, Jack is a ILB spot, the strongside inside linebacker, who is typically the lead block eater in addition to covering a little. This guy is one of the guys that'll be replaced by a DB on passing downs depending on the play. It is overall a very similar position to 4-3 sam, which Pops played. It can be a more happening spot though than it was in the 4-3 and there typically isn't as much in traffic trash to sift through, but I can see Hawk as the starter with Bishop and Pops fighting for the backup spot, while Barnett plays mike with Chillar behind him.

[Farley Face]

Unlike the 4-3 where there is a nice naming convention, the LB names tend to vary somewhat from scheme to scheme in the 3-4. I've heard sam, mike, will, elephant, or sam, ted, mike, will, or sam, jack, mike, and will, depends o the coach. But yes, Jack is a ILB spot, the strongside inside linebacker, who is typically the lead block eater in addition to covering a little. This guy is one of the guys that'll be replaced by a DB on passing downs depending on the play. It is overall a very similar position to 4-3 sam, which Pops played. It can be a more happening spot though than it was in the 4-3 and there typically isn't as much in traffic trash to sift through, but I can see Hawk as the starter with Bishop and Pops fighting for the backup spot, while Barnett plays mike with Chillar behind him.

Who typically covers the TE in a base 3-4? SOLB, SS, zone, or yes to all depending on the call? Chillar did ok in TE man last year but quality TEs have been giving us headaches for awhile.

[Waldo]

Unlike the 4-3 where there is a nice naming convention, the LB names tend to vary somewhat from scheme to scheme in the 3-4. I've heard sam, mike, will, elephant, or sam, ted, mike, will, or sam, jack, mike, and will, depends o the coach. But yes, Jack is a ILB spot, the strongside inside linebacker, who is typically the lead block eater in addition to covering a little. This guy is one of the guys that'll be replaced by a DB on passing downs depending on the play. It is overall a very similar position to 4-3 sam, which Pops played. It can be a more happening spot though than it was in the 4-3 and there typically isn't as much in traffic trash to sift through, but I can see Hawk as the starter with Bishop and Pops fighting for the backup spot, while Barnett plays mike with Chillar behind him.

Who typically covers the TE in a base 3-4? SOLB, SS, zone, or yes to all depending on the call? Chillar did ok in TE man last year but quality TEs have been giving us headaches for awhile.

Depends on the call, but I wouldn't expect to see any LB other than Barnett and Hawk in man coverage ever. Most 4-3 teams don't put their SLB in man coverage, a task almost all of them suck at. Sanders was an idiot for continuously covering with Pops in man. A Sanders SLB is a superbacker, good in traffic and good at covering, there is no such thing, especially at the level of a guy that comes off the field in nickel situations. The scheme was designed prior to Shannon Sharpe, and Sanders ran such a strict interpretation that it was unable to adapt to players like him (Witten, Gonzo, Gates, Cooley, etc....).

[Pugger]

I'm hoping players like Hawk will thrive with our new D scheme. I wonder if the past scheme didn't utilize our players to the upmost? :?:

[KYPack]

I tend to agree with what Waldo said above--that personnel doesn't have that much to do with the change, and that the great majority of players aren't overly suited for one and not the other.

It boils down to a matter of preference for the coaching staff on going to the 3-4. I've gotten psyched up about the change mainly because of the inherent effectiveness against the run--which was a clear weakness for the Packers last season. I don't like the idea that maybe (although not necessarily) the Packers will use more zone and less man coverage, but Capers is saying the right stuff--talking about flexibility and disguising coverage, so hopefully there won't be too much deviation, and what deviation there is will work.

What I also see as true, though, is that you can generally get more mileage out of lesser players with the 3-4. We're talking about Jamie Thompson and Jason Hunter--who basically weren't adequate in the 4-3. as good players--some say possible stars in the 3-4. We have two high quality ILBs, but arguably, less skill is required there too in the 3-4, as you have two to go sideline to sideline instead of just one. The DE position takes significantly less athleticism in the 3-4, and also is a haven for 4-3 "tweeners". Safety also should be easier to play, as I would assume with four LBs, they would have slightly less responsibility in run stopping.

I do not foresee a bad period early in the season while the players get used to the new scheme. That might be the case if coaches were learning right along with the players, but with Capers and his crew of 3-4 vets, the transition should be quick.

Well Tex and Waldo, I disagree with you two lads. And so does Mike McCarthy. We ended last season without the 4 down lineman necessary to play a 4-3. That means, we didn't have the PERSONNEL to put an effective defense on the field.

We had no RDE. We had guys who could line up there, but we didn't have players who could be effective at that spot. We could hope to catch a
RDE someplace and move ahead with a new 4-3 coordinator. We could also take our exisiting PERSONNEL, shuffle 'em around and quite possibly field an effective 3-4 based defense.

We did the latter. The Packers do have a core of hard chargin' young backers, several of whom could well be very good in a 3-4 scheme. We also have a very solid secondary made up of a good mix of young turks and very good cover vets who can slam the back door on teams. I like our chances with our existing personnel to cobble together a solid 3-4. It gives chances to some playmakers to go make plays.

I have concerns though,

- We are gonna take our best down lineman and make him a LB. I love Kamp. The guy is everthing you want, on and off the field. Are we screwing up our top defender by moving him this late in his career?

- Hawk and Barnett. Call it the Jonathan Vilma factor. Vilma was a very solid young backer. When the Jet moved him to a 3-4, he flopped around like a fish on the deck. I really hope our two boys make the transition. Both can play Mike, but which one is the Jack?

- Not as big a concern as a hope is the safety spot. Bigby and Rouse have got to come back healthy and one of 'em has to take over that spot as a playmaker. AND STOP PEEKIN' Them two boys are the peekin-est mf'ers I've ever seen. Good coaching will fix it. If they don't knock it off, you can find a guy to be solid in that spot with his mates all Pro Bowlers.

I think we will make it go. For real, no pom-pom bullshit, we can do it.

And it'll be fun to watch.

[texaspackerbacker]

You're right about the end of last year, KY, but that was because Jenkins was injured. With him coming back, they would have been OK in the 4-3 also.

Yeah, there's a chance Barnett or Hawk will be like Vilma, but I don't think so. Wasn't Vilma injured that season also?

Waldo, did I read you right? Chillar backing up at ILB? I could see Popinga maybe moving inside, but Chillar seems ideally suited for 3-4 OLB--pass rushing ability and limited coverage skills. Popinga also seems better suited for the outside. I'd have Bishop and then Lansanah or somebody new backing up inside.

[cheesner]

I'm hoping players like Hawk will thrive with our new D scheme. I wonder if the past scheme didn't utilize our players to the upmost? :?:

I think the new scheme will help, but the biggest impact is just better coaching. Better game planning. Better player preparation. How many times in the last 2 years have we heard about communication breakdowns in the secondary or assignment breakdowns or saw no in-game adjustments or . . .

I don't think the defensive side of the ball was very well coached and actually got by on just being very talented.

I am very excited to see what a great D coach can do with the talent we have.

[Waldo]

You're right about the end of last year, KY, but that was because Jenkins was injured. With him coming back, they would have been OK in the 4-3 also.

Yeah, there's a chance Barnett or Hawk will be like Vilma, but I don't think so. Wasn't Vilma injured that season also?

Waldo, did I read you right? Chillar backing up at ILB? I could see Popinga maybe moving inside, but Chillar seems ideally suited for 3-4 OLB--pass rushing ability and limited coverage skills. Popinga also seems better suited for the outside. I'd have Bishop and then Lansanah or somebody new backing up inside.

Vilma's struggles were due in large part to the fact that they took a Tampa-2 undersized defense and ran a 2 gap 3-4 without adding any new pieces. Their DE's were undersized, their NT was ridiculously undersized, being 6'1" 308 lb Dewayne Robertson. That is like us playing Jenkins at nose. You can see why Vilma may have struggled a bit. 340-350 lb Ryan Pickett is just a wee bit better suited to the nose.

Chillar's pass rushing ability is as a 4-3 OLB, where he sneaks though between the lineman being blocked and has to beat a RB. Against a 3-4 an OL typically flares out with the G's blocking the ends and T's blocking the OLB's in pass protection. If not they use an underneath coverage where the T's block the ends and G's step to the side and block the OLB's. Chillar may be good at getting past running backs, but getting past an OT is a whole different animal. This is why 3-4 teams don't draft linebackers to play OLB. They draft athletic college DE's, pass rushers, to play OLB, as the average LB is absolutely useless rushing against an OT. Against the run, the OLB's have the exact same job the DE's had in Sanders' scheme. Do you think that Chillar would have been a good replacement for Jenkins when he went down? Because that is the OLB's job.

Chillar would probably be a good fit at mike though. The mike is the best coverage LB of the bunch typically, and they are the ones that are least likely to be blocked. If Barnett doesn't have his speed 100% off the bat next year, I can definitely see him subbing for Barnett at mike on passing downs. He could probably play Jack too, but I'd put Hawk, Poppinga, and Bishop ahead of him there right not, possibly Lansanah too. Poppinga is by far our most stout LB that can handle playing amongst lineman. He's the only LB that we have that I can see playing OLB. I wouldn't want him to start, but I think that he's the only guy that can actually back up all 4 positions, making him very valuable on roster cutdown day.

[KYPack]

Vilma's struggles were due in large part to the fact that they took a Tampa-2 undersized defense and ran a 2 gap 3-4 without adding any new pieces. Their DE's were undersized, their NT was ridiculously undersized, being 6'1" 308 lb Dewayne Robertson. That is like us playing Jenkins at nose. You can see why Vilma may have struggled a bit. 340-350 lb Ryan Pickett is just a wee bit better suited to the nose.

Chillar's pass rushing ability is as a 4-3 OLB, where he sneaks though between the lineman being blocked and has to beat a RB. Against a 3-4 an OL typically flares out with the G's blocking the ends and T's blocking the OLB's in pass protection. If not they use an underneath coverage where the T's block the ends and G's step to the side and block the OLB's. Chillar may be good at getting past running backs, but getting past an OT is a whole different animal. This is why 3-4 teams don't draft linebackers to play OLB. They draft athletic college DE's, pass rushers, to play OLB, as the average LB is absolutely useless rushing against an OT. Against the run, the OLB's have the exact same job the DE's had in Sanders' scheme. Do you think that Chillar would have been a good replacement for Jenkins when he went down? Because that is the OLB's job.

Chillar would probably be a good fit at mike though. The mike is the best coverage LB of the bunch typically, and they are the ones that are least likely to be blocked. If Barnett doesn't have his speed 100% off the bat next year, I can definitely see him subbing for Barnett at mike on passing downs. He could probably play Jack too, but I'd put Hawk, Poppinga, and Bishop ahead of him there right not, possibly Lansanah too. Poppinga is by far our most stout LB that can handle playing amongst lineman. He's the only LB that we have that I can see playing OLB. I wouldn't want him to start, but I think that he's the only guy that can actually back up all 4 positions, making him very valuable on roster cutdown day.

Holy Mackerel,

I agree with this 100%.

I think we were light at DL in a 4-3, and have some good hands and depth in a 3-4 at DL. I'd like to see us get some more NT prospects. Pickett and some of our other guys could get worn out/burned out at that job in 09.

The new shell could be just the thing for Brady. He was a fish out of water really in a 4-3. An Olb in a 3-4 is really a stand-up DE. Brady is perfect for that gig.

How about Bishop for a Jack? That would play to his strengths perfectly. We have a bit of a logjam at Mike. Barnett, Hawk and Chillar can all be pretty good at that spot.

One of the big pluses for the team is the new staff. Darren Perry was in Cincy and all they guys raved about what a great coach he is. Just the thing to get our two young, aggressive safties going at it the right way. Kevin Greene and Winston Moss coaching the backers? Kevin will love Popp and Kamp.

Winston should get the Mike/Ted situation lined up for us, also.

Hey, let's start mini-camp and get it going!

[Waldo]

I really like Bishop at Jack, I think Lansanah will be a good fit there too. But I'd have a real hard time sitting either Barnett or Hawk. Playing Jack could be good for Hawk, especially if we take the NT off the field in nickel situations and play that 46 type thing that Pittsburgh plays on passing downs, with a DE sliding over to the nose and standing up linebackers filling the spot a few yards back.

The Jack 'backer is the attack 'backer, whereas mike is more of the safety of the front 7. Playing the spot that requires aggression might be exactly what Hawk needs to bust out, and it is more of a playmaking spot than SLB is in a 4-3. Playing the weak side Hawk always had to guard against cutbacks and misdirection, at jack he has the mike behind him to worry about things like that.

[Fritz]

I learn more from you guys than I ever have from the JSO or Press Gazette.

[mraynrand]

Chillar would probably be a good fit at mike though. The mike is the best coverage LB of the bunch typically, and they are the ones that are least likely to be blocked. If Barnett doesn't have his speed 100% off the bat next year, I can definitely see him subbing for Barnett at mike on passing downs. He could probably play Jack too, but I'd put Hawk, Poppinga, and Bishop ahead of him there right not, possibly Lansanah too. Poppinga is by far our most stout LB that can handle playing amongst lineman.

I agree. It seems though that the Pack has Jack, but doesn't like Mike. I am pessimistic about Barnett's return and Chillar is OK. Who would back up Chillar if Barnett can't go - Hawk?

[Waldo]

Definitely. Hawk would start over Chillar.

Just going through all the 3-4 rosters, most keep 9 LB's, 4 OLB's and 4 ILB's. I think that Pops is guaranteed spot #9 since he can flex between OLB and ILB.

Which leaves Barnett, Hawk, Chillar, Bishop, and Lansanah vying for 4 spots.

[Bossman641]

I learn more from you guys than I ever have from the JSO or Press Gazette.

Seriously. Watching Waldo and KY (and others) go back and forth is amazing.

[mission]

This is really a *great* site for Packer fans.

It's a lot less frustrating without PP around ... that helps me out a lot. :lol:

I'm with KY tho ... let's get this damn thing going already! At least FA ... sum'n, damn! :P

We have a lot of forum superstars now ... let's hope it translates to wins! :lol:

[sharpe1027]

Definitely. Hawk would start over Chillar.

Just going through all the 3-4 rosters, most keep 9 LB's, 4 OLB's and 4 ILB's. I think that Pops is guaranteed spot #9 since he can flex between OLB and ILB.

Which leaves Barnett, Hawk, Chillar, Bishop, and Lansanah vying for 4 spots.

I tend to agree.

IMO, Pop was at his best when he was playing down-hill and attacking the line-of-scrimmage, but he didn't get a lot of pressures on the QB last year. However, I am pretty sure that they lined him up at end a few times late in the year when there was an obvious passing down. His coverage has improved to the point that I didn't see his man running open three times a game (although part of that was Chillar). All of it bodes well for him being able to handle the OLB spot. However, if Kampman makes the transition to OLB, Kamp will be the guy doing more of the blitzing so maybe it would be OK to have Hawk opposite him on the outside.

I am not optimistic of Bishop's chances. He is a relatively strong guy, but his mobility is questionable, and I haven't been impressed with his ability to sniff out the hole. If we already have Kampman and Pop on the edges, can we afford another stiff in coverage?

I would think that some combination of Hawk, Barnett and Chillar will be the starting inside guys and some combination of Kampman, Pop and Hawk on the outside.

Consider that by moving Kampman to OLB they could make transitions between a 3-4 and a 4-3 without changing personnel. Basically, the opposing offense would be left guessing until they lineup for the snap.

[texaspackerbacker]

You're right about the end of last year, KY, but that was because Jenkins was injured. With him coming back, they would have been OK in the 4-3 also.

Yeah, there's a chance Barnett or Hawk will be like Vilma, but I don't think so. Wasn't Vilma injured that season also?

Waldo, did I read you right? Chillar backing up at ILB? I could see Popinga maybe moving inside, but Chillar seems ideally suited for 3-4 OLB--pass rushing ability and limited coverage skills. Popinga also seems better suited for the outside. I'd have Bishop and then Lansanah or somebody new backing up inside.

Vilma's struggles were due in large part to the fact that they took a Tampa-2 undersized defense and ran a 2 gap 3-4 without adding any new pieces. Their DE's were undersized, their NT was ridiculously undersized, being 6'1" 308 lb Dewayne Robertson. That is like us playing Jenkins at nose. You can see why Vilma may have struggled a bit. 340-350 lb Ryan Pickett is just a wee bit better suited to the nose.

Chillar's pass rushing ability is as a 4-3 OLB, where he sneaks though between the lineman being blocked and has to beat a RB. Against a 3-4 an OL typically flares out with the G's blocking the ends and T's blocking the OLB's in pass protection. If not they use an underneath coverage where the T's block the ends and G's step to the side and block the OLB's. Chillar may be good at getting past running backs, but getting past an OT is a whole different animal. This is why 3-4 teams don't draft linebackers to play OLB. They draft athletic college DE's, pass rushers, to play OLB, as the average LB is absolutely useless rushing against an OT. Against the run, the OLB's have the exact same job the DE's had in Sanders' scheme. Do you think that Chillar would have been a good replacement for Jenkins when he went down? Because that is the OLB's job.

Chillar would probably be a good fit at mike though. The mike is the best coverage LB of the bunch typically, and they are the ones that are least likely to be blocked. If Barnett doesn't have his speed 100% off the bat next year, I can definitely see him subbing for Barnett at mike on passing downs. He could probably play Jack too, but I'd put Hawk, Poppinga, and Bishop ahead of him there right not, possibly Lansanah too. Poppinga is by far our most stout LB that can handle playing amongst lineman. He's the only LB that we have that I can see playing OLB. I wouldn't want him to start, but I think that he's the only guy that can actually back up all 4 positions, making him very valuable on roster cutdown day.

You state your case very well. I say that sincerely.

I still think, though, that the Packers have Chillar in mind as an OLB--opportunity to start opposite Kampman, more likely being a backup.

I also think there is no way in hell that Barnett and Hawk won't start at ILB--Hawk being better suited for the "Jack" as you describe it, and Barnett better suited for the "Mike", with Bishop and Lansanah as the primary backups.

[Freak Out]

Did Hawk blitz much at Ohio State?

[texaspackerbacker]

Did Hawk blitz much at Ohio State?

I don't really know. I don't think Ohio State blitzed much in general.

I said Hawk at "Jack" and Barnett at "Mike" because of Barnett being the better at tracking down RBs all over the field and in pass coverage. Also, Hawk probably is a little bigger and better at playing off blockers.

[red]

unless we bring in a high draft pick or a free agent to play that other OLB, then i think the spot will be up for grabs in preseason

and i think we'll have some good competition for it. i still think it might be a great spot for pop. he was a pass rushing DE and a olb in college. semms like it would be a good spot for him. chillar is an option, but he strikes be as more of a cover guy, not a pass rusher, am i wrong in thinking that? and maybe thompson surprises us.

we'll see what the coaches think of those guys in a month or two when the draft rolls around. if we take a LB in the first two rounds, then we know that they think those other guys won't cut it

and i do agree that barnett and hawk are the locks inside. unless we somehow grab ray lewis or draft luga.

then who the hell knows what we would look like

[sharpe1027]

chillar is an option, but he strikes be as more of a cover guy, not a pass rusher, am i wrong in thinking that?

That is a good question. I think that because of how good he was in coverage I never really thought of him as a good at blitzing or strong at the point of attack. Here was a scouting report of him coming out out UCLA.

possesses fine speed and is a student of the game. He is tough and aggressive at the point of attack, yet he can also play well in space and has great change of direction, enabling him to cover well

I for one am not going to count the guy out, I think he may surprise us all.

[Freak Out]

Did Hawk blitz much at Ohio State?

I don't really know. I don't think Ohio State blitzed much in general.

I said Hawk at "Jack" and Barnett at "Mike" because of Barnett being the better at tracking down RBs all over the field and in pass coverage. Also, Hawk probably is a little bigger and better at playing off blockers.

Sorry Texas...my comment had nothing to do with what you posted....I never watch Ohio State so I had no idea how he was even used there. I don't remember him being very effective at blitzing when he was tasked with it here in GB but could be wrong.

[Waldo]

Someone posted this in another forum, but I thought this might interest you guys, JT's combine #'s:

Jeremy Thompson
10 yard-1.53
Shuttle-4.23
3 cone-6.97

Adrian Peterson
10 yard-1.53
Shuttle-4.4
3 cone-7.09

Vernon Gholston
10 yard-1.53
Shuttle-4.4
3 cone-7.12

Patrick Willis
10 yard-1.52
Shuttle-4.37
3 cone-7.10

Ernie Sims
10 yard-1.54
Shuttle-4.23
3 cone-7.32

The kid is a freak athlete. His potential at OLB is off the charts. He ran the 4th fastest 10 yd split that a DE has ever run at the combine, the 22nd fastest SS that a DE has ever run, and the 11th fasted 3 cone that a DE has ever run. His arms are downright ape like at 35 3/8", most pass rushers are around 33", almost nobody has arms as long as him.

[sharpe1027]

Someone posted this in another forum, but I thought this might interest you guys, JT's combine #'s:

Jeremy Thompson
10 yard-1.53
Shuttle-4.23
3 cone-6.97

Adrian Peterson
10 yard-1.53
Shuttle-4.4
3 cone-7.09

Vernon Gholston
10 yard-1.53
Shuttle-4.4
3 cone-7.12

Patrick Willis
10 yard-1.52
Shuttle-4.37
3 cone-7.10

Ernie Sims
10 yard-1.54
Shuttle-4.23
3 cone-7.32

The kid is a freak athlete. His potential at OLB is off the charts. He ran the 4th fastest 10 yd split that a DE has ever run at the combine, the 22nd fastest SS that a DE has ever run, and the 11th fasted 3 cone that a DE has ever run. His arms are downright ape like at 35 3/8", most pass rushers are around 33", almost nobody has arms as long as him.

Tim Harris like arms? Nice.

[Waldo]

Mario Williams' arms are 34" long, Julius Peppers' are 33 3/4", Merriman's are 32 7/8", and Ware's are 34".

Raji's are 31 1/4", Harrell's are 33 1/4"

[Waldo]

I'm just sayin'.......he might make a decent OLB. Freak athletes typically make good 3-4 OLB's, and he is definitely a freak athlete.

Kampman is too.

[Freak Out]

Someone posted this in another forum, but I thought this might interest you guys, JT's combine #'s:

Jeremy Thompson
10 yard-1.53
Shuttle-4.23
3 cone-6.97

Adrian Peterson
10 yard-1.53
Shuttle-4.4
3 cone-7.09

Vernon Gholston
10 yard-1.53
Shuttle-4.4
3 cone-7.12

Patrick Willis
10 yard-1.52
Shuttle-4.37
3 cone-7.10

Ernie Sims
10 yard-1.54
Shuttle-4.23
3 cone-7.32

The kid is a freak athlete. His potential at OLB is off the charts. He ran the 4th fastest 10 yd split that a DE has ever run at the combine, the 22nd fastest SS that a DE has ever run, and the 11th fasted 3 cone that a DE has ever run. His arms are downright ape like at 35 3/8", most pass rushers are around 33", almost nobody has arms as long as him.

Is his brother still on the roster? I think it says something when TT will trade up to get you.

[mraynrand]

I'm just sayin'.......he might make a decent OLB. Freak athletes typically make good 3-4 OLB's, and he is definitely a freak athlete.

Kampman is too.

Thompson looked uncomfortable at end, especially on run downs. I watched him a lot in the Colts game, if I remember correctly. He really did seem to have good burst and outside leverage, but he let himself get locked up and then get pushed around - prob. mostly due to rookie inexperience. I suspect the coaches are salivating at the chance to mold this guy into a 3-4 OLB. The more I read about it, the more I think the Packers are in pretty good shape. I was really pessimistic about Kamp since his hand was in the ground for quite a few years, but you have me thinking otherwise.

[The Shadow]

It will be exciting to see the new players brought in.

[Fritz]

Except it takes a year or so to get to know them. TT seems to draft guys no casual fan has ever heard of. When he drafted Nick Collins in the second, I went "Who the F___ is that?"

Now I know.

[KYPack]

I'm just sayin'.......he might make a decent OLB. Freak athletes typically make good 3-4 OLB's, and he is definitely a freak athlete.

Kampman is too.

Thompson looked uncomfortable at end, especially on run downs. I watched him a lot in the Colts game, if I remember correctly. He really did seem to have good burst and outside leverage, but he let himself get locked up and then get pushed around - prob. mostly due to rookie inexperience. I suspect the coaches are salivating at the chance to mold this guy into a 3-4 OLB. The more I read about it, the more I think the Packers are in pretty good shape. I was really pessimistic about Kamp since his hand was in the ground for quite a few years, but you have me thinking otherwise.

I know what you mean, MRD.

I remember a play Thompson made at the end of the season (Don't remember the opponent, I am allowing last year to become a blur).

Thompson made a helluva play on ST. The returner got loose and was heading up the sidelines. Thompson did a great job of running the field to force the guy out when we really needed it. He's got great upfield speed.

He looked real weak playing the run with his hand down. Maybe the new coaches (Greene?) can take this lemon and make lemonade out of him.

[Waldo]

Of all the plays against the run last year from the RDE spot, I thought that Thompson had the play of the year. I believe that it was during his first start. The inside was clogged up and the back tried to bounce outside (it was a called A gap run). He allowed the play to stretch down the line and shuffled down the line quick enough to give the back no lane (with the LT still blocking him). Once the back tried to cut past, JT shot past the tackle and got a hand on the back a few yards into the backfield. The back did break the tackle, but in the process of doing this the LB's had plenty of time to catch up, and I think it was Barnett that made the tackle for a 2-3 yard loss. It probably would have been a real good run if he didn't stretch the backside like that.

In a year of exceptional crap play from the RDE position, that was the one really good play that sticks in my mind. Monty and Cullen don't have the feet to go toe to toe with a LT and make a play like that. Cullen has the power to drive the LT upfield to keep it inside, he does it a different way, but that was well beyond what what Monty can do.

I know it doesn't sound like much, but little things like that make the difference between a mediocre player and a good one. I think that he definitely has the highest odds right now of being the spring golden boy. Last year it was Tramon and Barbre. Two years ago it was Jolly and Bigby. I've got to think the favorites going into the spring have got to be Thompson and Finley, though Lee is a strong possibility with Harrell and Lansanah as dark horse candidates.

[KYPack]

I dimly remember that play. The kid had a few edge rushes that you could see would be really good once he gets experience. He needs to grow and get in an NFL weight room. He has lots of trouble fighting off good drive blocks, like most young DLineman.
He needs a boxing intructor. Hairston was supposed to be such a good end coach, but lots of our kids were weak with their hands.
I agree, Thompson has some great skills that you can't teach. That footspeed of his is golden.

[Waldo]

I dimly remember that play. The kid had a few edge rushes that you could see would be really good once he gets experience. He needs to grow and get in an NFL weight room. He has lots of trouble fighting off good drive blocks, like most young DLineman.
He needs a boxing intructor. Hairston was supposed to be such a good end coach, but lots of our kids were weak with their hands.
I agree, Thompson has some great skills that you can't teach. That footspeed opf his is golden.

The inconsistency of our guys on the DL is really strange. Kamp is a master with his hands, he pretty much is as good as it gets with hand technique. What he misses with pass rusher "moves" (which he has very little of IMO) he makes up with with his stellar hand technique and use of leverage. Cullen is a master of leverage. He has a quick first step, but he knows how to apply his weight and strength for maximum effect. Monty and Hunter almost look like rookies out there their technique is so poor. How is that possible after being on the team for so many years in the company of Cullen and Kamp, under the same coaches.

Same thing with the DT's. Pickett's game is pretty consistent and Harrell plays like a well coached player, but Jolly doesn't look like he's ever been coached in his life, Williams missed the mark on his run stopping technique, Cole has the weight and seems to have good strength, but he is absolutely clueless when it comes to applying his weight and power for effect. Though I don't think Cole has the best balance or feet and is slow as molasses. After a promising looking start, Muir failed to progress at all.

Maybe it is just the players. Maybe we have a bunch of guys that just don't want it that bad or aren't real receptive to coaching. It seems the players that put in the extra effort are well coached.

It is a complete 180 from the opposite line. On the OL the guys might not be the greatest physical prospects, but overall our group has well above average technique almost across the board. The only reason a guy like Wells is even playing in the league is because his technique is so good. Even Moll, inconsistent as he is, has quite good technique. His mental game is sub par and he isn't the greatest physically, but when he isn't screwing up his assignment or getting dominated by superior athletes, solid technique is there. If there is one coaching hangup on the OL it is mental focus and consistency, but it is nearly across the board also, you can see that the coaching is a little weak in that one area, but it is nothing like the DL and its hodgepodge of guys that show good and bad coaching at varying things.

You could see JT's pass rush technique getting better and better, he was so close so many times. He got pretty good at the bullrush upfield/cut underneath rush, he just could never get off it. He just couldn't deliver the punch strong enough at the exact right moment to knock the LT off balance to get by him. A little more work on timing it and an offseason of flipping tires and tossing around medicine balls with Kamp and that one is going to start to work for him. He has the bullrush part of it down, and the length for the punch to be effective, just doing it at the right moment and putting enough oomph into it is all that is lacking. He was also getting pretty close on the outside rush where he bends around the T on the backside.

[KYPack]

I dimly remember that play. The kid had a few edge rushes that you could see would be really good once he gets experience. He needs to grow and get in an NFL weight room. He has lots of trouble fighting off good drive blocks, like most young DLineman.
He needs a boxing intructor. Hairston was supposed to be such a good end coach, but lots of our kids were weak with their hands.
I agree, Thompson has some great skills that you can't teach. That footspeed of his is golden.

The inconsistency of our guys on the DL is really strange. Kamp is a master with his hands, he pretty much is as good as it gets with hand technique. What he misses with pass rusher "moves" (which he has very little of IMO) he makes up with with his stellar hand technique and use of leverage. Cullen is a master of leverage. He has a quick first step, but he knows how to apply his weight and strength for maximum effect. Monty and Hunter almost look like rookies out there their technique is so poor. How is that possible after being on the team for so many years in the company of Cullen and Kamp, under the same coaches.

Same thing with the DT's. Pickett's game is pretty consistent and Harrell plays like a well coached player, but Jolly doesn't look like he's ever been coached in his life, Williams missed the mark on his run stopping technique, Cole has the weight and seems to have good strength, but he is absolutely clueless when it comes to applying his weight and power for effect. Though I don't think Cole has the best balance or feet and is slow as molasses. After a promising looking start, Muir failed to progress at all.

Maybe it is just the players. Maybe we have a bunch of guys that just don't want it that bad or aren't real receptive to coaching. It seems the players that put in the extra effort are well coached.

It is a complete 180 from the opposite line. On the OL the guys might not be the greatest physical prospects, but overall our group has well above average technique almost across the board. The only reason a guy like Wells is even playing in the league is because his technique is so good. Even Moll, inconsistent as he is, has quite good technique. His mental game is sub par and he isn't the greatest physically, but when he isn't screwing up his assignment or getting dominated by superior athletes, solid technique is there. If there is one coaching hangup on the OL it is mental focus and consistency, but it is nearly across the board also, you can see that the coaching is a little weak in that one area, but it is nothing like the DL and its hodgepodge of guys that show good and bad coaching at varying things.

You got it, pal. Agree 100%

Guess you watch the same team I do.

The ends are poor with their hands other than Kamp, who is an All-World hand fighter. I understand Hunter being lost, but Montgomery had been around for years, yet still has rookie technique. Montgomery made a jump in the last few games, maybe the light is coming on. This was his 3rd year, he should be more ready than he showed in '08.

Muir is an excellent case in point. He should have beaten out Cole, but lost out in a close battle. Playing for Indy, he looks like a different guy. His technique has inproved by a huge margin. Our guys have poor technique and develop very slowly. That's weak coaching. Sanders was the old line coach, but our line didn't really progress, it regressed. That's why a bunch of those coaches ain't getting a paycheck here anymore.

[mraynrand]

He needs a boxing intructor. .

Maybe they still have Ahmad Carroll's boxing gloves lying around somewhere....

[mraynrand]

The whole D-line was disappointing, but the thing that bothered me the most was the lack of progress. Everyone seemed to regress, none worse that Jolly.

Still, Kampman is a great technician, both in physical technique and in strategy - in setting linemen up. I've watched him dip his outside shoulder on an inside move on a guy two three times in a row, and then the next time, dip the shoulder exactly the same way and then do an outside move. The O-lineman was struck dumb "Which way did he go?" I don't think Kampman is less an instinctive player and much more a cerebral player, so I guess he will be very good at OLB, but not dominant in the way that guys with that natural instinctive burst - like a Harrison - are.

[rbaloha1]

Thompson is physically gifted. IMO Thompson was thinking too much rather than just playing.

Thompson is an outstanding candidate for an olb position.