Bottom Line - Kampman is going to have trouble as 3-4 olb

[rbaloha1]

Check out link

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/packers.html

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think Kampman will do well. He's more athletic than people give him credit for and he did play some LB in college.

[Lurker64]

Perhaps you may not have missed the missive, but Mad is very insistent that we not copy/paste stuff from the Journal Sentinel. They send angry letters and generally discriminate against us, and what you posted is probably not fair use.

So in other words, this post is Garbage. If only we had some sort of Can where we could dispose of this kind of Garbage.

[Joemailman]

Rbaloha

One word. Link.

[The Shadow]

Capers will find a way to incorporate a very good player into a viable scheme.
Many posters think it's an all or nothing proposition with the 3-4, but there may well be plenty of leeway.

[packers11]

haha mad is going to blow up when he see's this article... LINK IT... QUICKKK

[rbaloha1]

Considering the director of football operations for the Super Bowl champs running a similar scheme to the Packers provided the comments, maybe they should be strongly regarded.

Specifically, where is Mr. Colbert wrong? Only time will tell if Colbert is correct about AK.

[rbaloha1]

Rbaloha

One word. Link.

Sorry.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/packers.html

[Joemailman]

What I meant was you need to edit your original post. Delete the printed article and just post the link.

Edit: Well done! :D

[HarveyWallbangers]

Considering the director of football operations for the Super Bowl champs running a similar scheme to the Packers provided the comments, maybe they should be strongly regarded.

Specifically, where is Mr. Colbert wrong? Only time will tell if Colbert is correct about AK.

He didn't say all of those players would struggle. He wasn't even specifically talking about Kampman. Bedard put those words in his mouth, and he happens to have been harping on this issue for awhile now. He's also been wrong a lot (e.g. I think he thought the Packers should bring in an old Jason Taylor last year, among other things). This is like Partial taking the one scout who said Rodgers was the 19th best QB to "prove" Rodgers was an average QB. There have been several "Kampman should succeed in this defense" articles. Dom Capers seems to think he'll be able to get the best out of Kampman.

[Joemailman]

All Colbert said was that DE's making the switch to linebacker would have the toughest transition. Anytime you have a scheme change, some position is going to have the toughest transition. That doesn't mean it can't be done. In the case of Kampman, he's made a great career out of exceeding expectations. I wouldn't bet against him before he has a chance to take the field.

[SnakeLH2006]

Bedard does well as a journalist, but I think it's fair to say that Kampy will not disappear at OLB, as good players make plays (Madden quote). LOL.

Bedard is doing his job selling papers and web-ads to jsonline, that's all.

Kampy will be fine.

[packrulz]

I would like to see Kampy stay at DE, he can beef up about 10-15lbs, he has a lot of moves at DE and the Packers aren't exactly stocked there. Poppy, Hunter, Thompson, and other guys can compete for OLB. Who else can they put at DE? I think it will be Jenkins/Pickett/Kampman as the front 3 and Poppy/Hawk/Barnett/Hunter as the 4 LBs with Chilliar as the darkhorse. Depending upon who TT drafts of course, I think it will be one of these 3: 1. CB Jenkins 2. OT Smith 3. DE Orakpo. Raji is ok but these other guys are better value at #9.

[Gunakor]

I would like to see Kampy stay at DE, he can beef up about 10-15lbs, he has a lot of moves at DE and the Packers aren't exactly stocked there. Poppy, Hunter, Thompson, and other guys can compete for OLB. Who else can they put at DE? I think it will be Jenkins/Pickett/Kampman as the front 3 and Poppy/Hawk/Barnett/Hunter as the 4 LBs with Chilliar as the darkhorse. Depending upon who TT drafts of course, I think it will be one of these 3: 1. CB Jenkins 2. OT Smith 3. DE Orakpo. Raji is ok but these other guys are better value at #9.

Kampy would be miscast in a 3-4 at DE. 3-4 DE's generally are not pass rushers. They are run stuffers. They are block eaters. Kampy could do both of these things effectively I'm sure, but he's a pass rusher and in a 3-4 pass rushers don't put their hand in the dirt. To best utilize his skills as a pass rusher, they'll stand him up at OLB.

And in a 3-4, a solid NT is much more important than solid DE's. I like Pickett, but I don't think he can play 95% of the defensive snaps for a full 16 games. Raji is more than okay given our current need for a true NT to at the very least split time with Pickett and keep him fresh.

[Packnut]

Kampman will have no trouble rushing the QB. In fact, I would expect him to be better due to having more space to work with. My worry with this change is that offensive coordinators will try to isolate Kampy in coverage.

To expect him to cover RB's in the flat would be insane. We've all seen Hawk have trouble with it. Poppinga could'nt cover a back to save his life. Even Barnett has had games where he was badly out-played in this area.

If you go back to all those 4th quarter blunders we had, take a look at how many of those games we lost because our LB's could'nt cover the flats. I believe Capers knows this is a major weakness. It is crucial, Thompson finds someone, either through the draft or FA at the other outside LB spot that can cover. This change won't succeed without it. You can hide one OLB with cover weakness as long as the other one has it as a strength.

[Waldo]

Kampman will have no trouble rushing the QB. In fact, I would expect him to be better due to having more space to work with. My worry with this change is that offensive coordinators will try to isolate Kampy in coverage.

To expect him to cover RB's in the flat would be insane. We've all seen Hawk have trouble with it. Poppinga could'nt cover a back to save his life. Even Barnett has had games where he was badly out-played in this area.

If you go back to all those 4th quarter blunders we had, take a look at how many of those games we lost because our LB's could'nt cover the flats. I believe Capers knows this is a major weakness. It is crucial, Thompson finds someone, either through the draft or FA at the other outside LB spot that can cover. This change won't succeed without it. You can hide one OLB with cover weakness as long as the other one has it as a strength.

Kamp can run just as fast as Barnett and Hawk.

Kamp - 4.65 40, 4.09 shuttle
Barnett - 4.67 40, 4.08 shuttle
Hawk - 4.59 40, 3.96 shuttle
Chillar - 4.71 40, 4.09 shuttle
Poppinga - 4.59 40, 4.39 shuttle

Their change of direction ability (shuttle) has a lot to do with how well they can cover.

GB's LB's are exceptionally good at covering relative to other teams. They were also put in a scheme that required them to cover exceptionally well. Few teams in the NFL ask their SLB to cover man to man, for most teams it is the will and mike that have that job. For 3-4 teams that is the task of the jack and mike. Is Merriman a major weakness because he sucks at coverage (he does)?

GB's poor flat coverage had a lot to do with our man to man coverage, DB's weren't part of the solution because they had to stick to their guy like glue and look at him, not the play. Man to man teams will always be weak on the edges, what you gain in decreased completion %, you lose in ability to stop short passes from going for decent gains. Most teams stopped running mostly man coverage in part because the typical attack of the WCO philosophy chewed it up.

Capers has already said that were probably going to play a lot more zone on non-3rd and long.

There is a big philosophical difference, cover a RB in the flats in man, if he beats the coverage he'll get a good # of yards, but he won't catch it as often. Cover him in zone with a guy downfield, he's gonna catch a lot more passes, but chances are is the defender is in position it will only be for a couple yards at most. Does Kamp have problems with open field tackling? That will be his primary coverage responsibility, whack a guy as soon as the ball gets to him. Getting in there to play like Harris is not what they are going to be asked to do.

[sharpe1027]

Kampman will have no trouble rushing the QB. In fact, I would expect him to be better due to having more space to work with. My worry with this change is that offensive coordinators will try to isolate Kampy in coverage.

To expect him to cover RB's in the flat would be insane. We've all seen Hawk have trouble with it. Poppinga could'nt cover a back to save his life. Even Barnett has had games where he was badly out-played in this area.

If you go back to all those 4th quarter blunders we had, take a look at how many of those games we lost because our LB's could'nt cover the flats. I believe Capers knows this is a major weakness. It is crucial, Thompson finds someone, either through the draft or FA at the other outside LB spot that can cover. This change won't succeed without it. You can hide one OLB with cover weakness as long as the other one has it as a strength.

Can either of Pittsburgh's OLB's cover a back in the flat? I think not, yet they are still one of the best Defenses.

Kamp will be in zone coverage when they don't send him on a blitz, and they will probably blitz him pretty often.

[Deputy Nutz]

Kampman will have no trouble rushing the QB. In fact, I would expect him to be better due to having more space to work with. My worry with this change is that offensive coordinators will try to isolate Kampy in coverage.

To expect him to cover RB's in the flat would be insane. We've all seen Hawk have trouble with it. Poppinga could'nt cover a back to save his life. Even Barnett has had games where he was badly out-played in this area.

If you go back to all those 4th quarter blunders we had, take a look at how many of those games we lost because our LB's could'nt cover the flats. I believe Capers knows this is a major weakness. It is crucial, Thompson finds someone, either through the draft or FA at the other outside LB spot that can cover. This change won't succeed without it. You can hide one OLB with cover weakness as long as the other one has it as a strength.

I think your opinion of Hawk covering running backs is false, he is quite good dropping into the flat and picking up the back, probably the only thing I can say he is above average at.

Kampman is going to be a rotation guy, just like 75% of the defense. He isn't going to be playing 70 snaps anymore.

[Waldo]

Kampman will have no trouble rushing the QB. In fact, I would expect him to be better due to having more space to work with. My worry with this change is that offensive coordinators will try to isolate Kampy in coverage.

To expect him to cover RB's in the flat would be insane. We've all seen Hawk have trouble with it. Poppinga could'nt cover a back to save his life. Even Barnett has had games where he was badly out-played in this area.

If you go back to all those 4th quarter blunders we had, take a look at how many of those games we lost because our LB's could'nt cover the flats. I believe Capers knows this is a major weakness. It is crucial, Thompson finds someone, either through the draft or FA at the other outside LB spot that can cover. This change won't succeed without it. You can hide one OLB with cover weakness as long as the other one has it as a strength.

I think your opinion of Hawk covering running backs is false, he is quite good dropping into the flat and picking up the back, probably the only thing I can say he is above average at.

Kampman is going to be a rotation guy, just like 75% of the defense. He isn't going to be playing 70 snaps anymore.

Hawk is one of the most reliable tacklers in the NFL. Packer fans take this for granted. They shouldn't. He is one of the only LB's that can reliably take down a guy like AD in space virtually every try by himself.

[Packnut]

Kampman will have no trouble rushing the QB. In fact, I would expect him to be better due to having more space to work with. My worry with this change is that offensive coordinators will try to isolate Kampy in coverage.

To expect him to cover RB's in the flat would be insane. We've all seen Hawk have trouble with it. Poppinga could'nt cover a back to save his life. Even Barnett has had games where he was badly out-played in this area.

If you go back to all those 4th quarter blunders we had, take a look at how many of those games we lost because our LB's could'nt cover the flats. I believe Capers knows this is a major weakness. It is crucial, Thompson finds someone, either through the draft or FA at the other outside LB spot that can cover. This change won't succeed without it. You can hide one OLB with cover weakness as long as the other one has it as a strength.

Can either of Pittsburgh's OLB's cover a back in the flat? I think not, yet they are still one of the best Defenses.

Kamp will be in zone coverage when they don't send him on a blitz, and they will probably blitz him pretty often.

Don't know what your watching but I've seen Pitt's OLB's make several plays on RB's in the flat. Also, they have a guy at saftey who makes plays all over the field. We have no where near the talent on D that the Steelers do so obviously we can't do what they do.

[sharpe1027]

Don't know what your watching but I've seen Pitt's OLB's make several plays on RB's in the flat. Also, they have a guy at saftey who makes plays all over the field. We have no where near the talent on D that the Steelers do so obviously we can't do what they do.

I was watching the games, thank you very much. You are applying one standard for the Packers and another for Pittsburgh. The Packers LBers also made "several plays on RB's in the flat" last year, what games were you watching?

The difference is that the Packer's LBers were generally asked to man up on the RBs with little or no help because everyone behind them was also locked up in man coverage (a very different scheme than in Pittsburgh). So, sure the Packer's LBers were seen trailing a TE or RB in the flat more than in Pittsburgh. You can't reasonably compare the two without more thought going into your comparison.

Also, nobody said we could go from last years performance to what Pittsburgh does in one off-season. That still doesn't mean that Kampman will be need to man up on a RB in the flat very often, or ever.

Look, Kampman may struggle and not work out or he may find he was born to play OLB. Until he gets on the field, I think you are jumping the gun to write him off. He worked his ass off to become a DE, when he was originally a LBer, nobody thought he would succeed at that, for the opposite reasons (too small, not strong enough, not able to play with his hand down, ect...). Going back to a LBer position where he will be asked to blitz a lot doesn't seem like an impossibility to me, in fact, it seems like a damn good fit.

[rbaloha1]

To expect him to cover RB's in the flat would be insane. We've all seen Hawk have trouble with it. Poppinga could'nt cover a back to save his life. Even Barnett has had games where he was badly out-played in this area.

If you go back to all those 4th quarter blunders we had, take a look at how many of those games we lost because our LB's could'nt cover the flats. I believe Capers knows this is a major weakness. It is crucial, Thompson finds someone, either through the draft or FA at the other outside LB spot that can cover. This change won't succeed without it. You can hide one OLB with cover weakness as long as the other one has it as a strength.

Good point. Kampy may not be a true 3-4 olb. More the hybrid type with minimal pass coverage responsibilities.

[rbaloha1]

[quote=Packnut]
Kamp can run just as fast as Barnett and Hawk.

Kamp - 4.65 40, 4.09 shuttle
Barnett - 4.67 40, 4.08 shuttle
Hawk - 4.59 40, 3.96 shuttle
Chillar - 4.71 40, 4.09 shuttle
Poppinga - 4.59 40, 4.39 shuttle

Their change of direction ability (shuttle) has a lot to do with how well they can cover.

GB's LB's are exceptionally good at covering relative to other teams. They were also put in a scheme that required them to cover exceptionally well. Few teams in the NFL ask their SLB to cover man to man, for most teams it is the will and mike that have that job. For 3-4 teams that is the task of the jack and mike. Is Merriman a major weakness because he sucks at coverage (he does)?

GB's poor flat coverage had a lot to do with our man to man coverage, DB's weren't part of the solution because they had to stick to their guy like glue and look at him, not the play. Man to man teams will always be weak on the edges, what you gain in decreased completion %, you lose in ability to stop short passes from going for decent gains. Most teams stopped running mostly man coverage in part because the typical attack of the WCO philosophy chewed it up.

Capers has already said that were probably going to play a lot more zone on non-3rd and long.

There is a big philosophical difference, cover a RB in the flats in man, if he beats the coverage he'll get a good # of yards, but he won't catch it as often. Cover him in zone with a guy downfield, he's gonna catch a lot more passes, but chances are is the defender is in position it will only be for a couple yards at most. Does Kamp have problems with open field tackling? That will be his primary coverage responsibility, whack a guy as soon as the ball gets to him. Getting in there to play like Harris is not what they are going to be asked to do.

These stats are meaningless for making plays as a football player. Yes they possess athleticism to play the position but is not a direct correlation for making impact plays as a football player.

What are Bishop's measureables? How many impact plays did Bishop make vs, Hawk based on playing time?

Bottom line - Hawk and Poppinga are inconsistent in coverage. Hawk's measureables does not translate to impact plays on the FOOTBALL FIELD.

[Waldo]

Does Kamp suck on the football field? I think that his athleticism has translated quite well. It's amazing how in one season Hawk goes from being the statistically best coverage LB in the NFL (he was in '07) to an absolute scrub. Gotta love the short memory of fans.

[wist43]

He'll be a fish out of water... I've been a 3-4 cheerleader for years, but the way the Packers are going about it all but ensures they will be running a 4-3 much more often than a 3-4.

Since they're stating publicly that they intend to run a "hybrid", and to use whatever base defense works best for a given opponent/situation... it won't take long for them to figure out that Kampman can't play LB, and Harrell can't play DE, and that Barnett is even worse as a 3-4 LB, than he was as a 4-3 LB, etc...

Add that, the fact that TT is unlikely to make much of an effort to target 3-4 players in FA, and that he will always, and only, take his BPA in the draft... it is unlikely that there will be much help arriving in the off season to facilitate the changeover...

Ergo... 2, 3 games into the season... i expect that 3-4/hybrid will be looking like a very familiar 4-3.

[rbaloha1]

Does Kamp suck on the football field? I think that his athleticism has translated quite well. It's amazing how in one season Hawk goes from being the statistically best coverage LB in the NFL (he was in '07) to an absolute scrub. Gotta love the short memory of fans.

Again, Kampy is on of the best as a 4-3 end. However using stats to make the assertion that this translates to being an impact 3-4 olb is a huge stretch.

Please post Bishop's drill stats.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think Kampman will do well as a 3-4 OLB. Others feel the same way. Wist, rbaloha, and others don't think he'll do well. We'll see when the season starts. Capers seems to think he'll do well. I trust him at this point. That's where we are at. Not sure we need a new thread about this every few days.

[Waldo]

Does Kamp suck on the football field? I think that his athleticism has translated quite well. It's amazing how in one season Hawk goes from being the statistically best coverage LB in the NFL (he was in '07) to an absolute scrub. Gotta love the short memory of fans.

Again, Kampy is on of the best as a 4-3 end. However using stats to make the assertion that this translates to being an impact 3-4 olb is a huge stretch.

Please post Bishop's drill stats.

Google isn't that hard to use.

Bishop ran a 4.81 40 and 4.65 shuttle. And can't cover to save his life, nor can he catch a RB trying to turn the corner, hence Hawk started all year at MLB after Barnett went down. Bishop is a 2 down LB, just like Hodge was.

How do you think "impact" OLB's are found? Certainly isn't on tape as ALL of them played DE in college. It is by how they perform at the combine, combined with their college ability to get to the QB off the edge.

As much as fans like to think "pick football players not combine stars", TT disagrees with you, he picks combine studs almost exclusively until the late rounds. The higher "good football players" that he has taken (Hodge, Brohm, Spitz) haven't exactly been his best picks. The one combine test TT pays moderate attention to is the 40, whereas he seems to put a lot of stock in the 10 yd split, the shuttle, and the players frame.

Jordy - Incredible top speed for a guy his size, good hands
Lee - Very good speed overall and great short area quickness, good size
Finley - Fastest TE in the draft
Thompson - Nearly identical measurables to Chris Long, very long arms
Sitton - Very good agility, strength, and size, prototypical G
Harrell - Extremely high power/speed/size ratio, much better than the rest of the DT's in the draft
Jackson - Fast 10 yd split, good 40, very high agility
Jones - Strongest WR in draft, good short area speed and change of direction ability, good hands
Rouse - Runs a legit low 4.4's, incredible for a guy his size
Barbre - fastest lineman in draft
Wynn - Fastest 10 yd split a 220 lb+ RB has ever recorded at the combine
Hawk - Fastest shuttle recorded at the combine, highest vert of the LB's
Colledge - Very good agility and quickness and prototypical LT frame
Jennings - Ran a 4.4 40, good hands
Hodge - Good football player, horrible combine
Spitz - Good football player, mediocre combine
Rodgers - Legit 4.4 WR, good returner (broke his good hands rule though)
Blackmon - Legit 4.4 DB, good size
Clowney - Little 4.35 burner, just as fast as Ginn
Rodgers - Good athlete for a QB, most accurate QB in draft
Collins - Sub 4.4 burner, fastest S in draft (only Huff was faster since)
Murphy - 4.4 burner, good hands
Poppinga - One of the fastest 40's a DE ran
Montgomery - Longest arms of any DE in the draft

[sharpe1027]

He'll be a fish out of water... I've been a 3-4 cheerleader for years, but the way the Packers are going about it all but ensures they will be running a 4-3 much more often than a 3-4.

Since they're stating publicly that they intend to run a "hybrid", and to use whatever base defense works best for a given opponent/situation... it won't take long for them to figure out that Kampman can't play LB, and Harrell can't play DE, and that Barnett is even worse as a 3-4 LB, than he was as a 4-3 LB, etc...

Add that, the fact that TT is unlikely to make much of an effort to target 3-4 players in FA, and that he will always, and only, take his BPA in the draft... it is unlikely that there will be much help arriving in the off season to facilitate the changeover...

Ergo... 2, 3 games into the season... i expect that 3-4/hybrid will be looking like a very familiar 4-3.

Sure, or he will do just fine. The difference between my position and yours is that I don't pretend to know the answer. What I *think* is that Kampman will be able make a lot of plays at OLB and will probably also make a lot of mistakes, especially early. Hopefully, the good plays outweigh the bad. Why do I think that? A good question. Thanks for asking. :wink:

1) Kampman has a distinct advantage of having already played LB for a good chunk of his life.
2) His measurable are solid.
3) He is a smart player.
4) He is a dedicated worker and good technician.
5) He has a proven coaching staff behind him.
6.) He put on weight for the DE position and is still not that huge, making me think he can play lighter if need be.
7) Other OLBers have made the transition from DE with less experience, if any, in coverage.
6) I prefer to be hopeful that the Packers can be good, rather than always assume they will fail.

Why do you *think* he will be a fish out of water? What facts and reasoned conclusions do you have?

[sharpe1027]

Does Kamp suck on the football field? I think that his athleticism has translated quite well. It's amazing how in one season Hawk goes from being the statistically best coverage LB in the NFL (he was in '07) to an absolute scrub. Gotta love the short memory of fans.

Again, Kampy is on of the best as a 4-3 end. However using stats to make the assertion that this translates to being an impact 3-4 olb is a huge stretch.

Please post Bishop's drill stats.

You can pick apart Waldo's position by discounting the facts and explanations, but can you provide any support for your own?

[CaptainKickass]

I've been a 3-4 cheerleader for years.

Wow -

I knew that switching from the 4-3 to the 3-4 meant that changes in the organization went very deep.

But I never knew that you were a cheerleader Wist. And furthermore - I never knew that cheerleaders in general are evaluated in a fashion that makes them more suitable to one style of defense versus another.

So now the Packers gotta go find cheerleaders from another WI college that plays the 3-4, just because we changed our style of defense?

I mean WOW.

.

[rbaloha1]

Does Kamp suck on the football field? I think that his athleticism has translated quite well. It's amazing how in one season Hawk goes from being the statistically best coverage LB in the NFL (he was in '07) to an absolute scrub. Gotta love the short memory of fans.

Again, Kampy is on of the best as a 4-3 end. However using stats to make the assertion that this translates to being an impact 3-4 olb is a huge stretch.

Please post Bishop's drill stats.

I shall go with the comments of the Director of Football Operations for the Steelers and Chewy's remarks.

You can pick apart Waldo's position by discounting the facts and explanations, but can you provide any support for your own?

[sharpe1027]

I shall go with the comments of the Director of Football Operations for the Steelers and Chewy's remarks.


I shall counter with:
Tony Brackens
Don Capers
Mike McCarthy
Kevin Greene and
The Director of Football Operations for the Steelers who seems to found success with a another guy who had questionable coverage skills in Harrison.

[rbaloha1]

I shall go with the comments of the Director of Football Operations for the Steelers and Chewy's remarks.


I shall counter with:
Tony Brackens
Don Capers
Mike McCarthy
Kevin Greene and
The Director of Football Operations for the Steelers who seems to found success with a another guy who had questionable coverage skills in Harrison.

I expect all Packer officials to expect Kampman to perform well. What are they supposed to say?

Lets hope it works out and Kampy remains an all pro.

[sheepshead]

There are a few guys I wouldn't bet against, Aaron Kampman's one.

[sharpe1027]

I expect all Packer officials to expect Kampman to perform well. What are they supposed to say?

Lets hope it works out and Kampy remains an all pro.

Agreed, but I threw in Brackens as a one example of what Capers has done in the past.

I also read the quotes by Kevin Colbert and the statement about it being tough for a player like Kampman was right next to his statement about how Harrison came in with similar questions about his ability.

I personally don't give much stock in Chewy's knowledge of Caper's 3-4 defense, but that is just my opinion.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Lets hope it works out and Kampy remains an all pro.

Well, he wasn't an All-Pro last year. Not even a Pro Bowler. I think a lot depends on the guys around him. You know what you'll get, but if there's nobody else to rush the passer, he isn't going to look good--whether it's as a 4-3 DE or 3-4 OLB.

[rbaloha1]

I expect all Packer officials to expect Kampman to perform well. What are they supposed to say?

Lets hope it works out and Kampy remains an all pro.

Agreed, but I threw in Brackens as a one example of what Capers has done in the past.

I also read the quotes by Kevin Colbert and the statement about it being tough for a player like Kampman was right next to his statement about how Harrison came in with similar questions about his ability.

I personally don't give much stock in Chewy's knowledge of Caper's 3-4 defense, but that is just my opinion.

Brackens was much more athletic and physically stronger than AK.

[Lurker64]

Brackens was much more athletic and physically stronger than AK.

Please provide evidence. It is apparent from Kampman's combine numbers that he is an exceptional athlete, do you have anything more about this than "gut feeling"?

[wist43]

He'll be a fish out of water... I've been a 3-4 cheerleader for years, but the way the Packers are going about it all but ensures they will be running a 4-3 much more often than a 3-4.

Since they're stating publicly that they intend to run a "hybrid", and to use whatever base defense works best for a given opponent/situation... it won't take long for them to figure out that Kampman can't play LB, and Harrell can't play DE, and that Barnett is even worse as a 3-4 LB, than he was as a 4-3 LB, etc...

Add that, the fact that TT is unlikely to make much of an effort to target 3-4 players in FA, and that he will always, and only, take his BPA in the draft... it is unlikely that there will be much help arriving in the off season to facilitate the changeover...

Ergo... 2, 3 games into the season... i expect that 3-4/hybrid will be looking like a very familiar 4-3.

Sure, or he will do just fine. The difference between my position and yours is that I don't pretend to know the answer. What I *think* is that Kampman will be able make a lot of plays at OLB and will probably also make a lot of mistakes, especially early. Hopefully, the good plays outweigh the bad. Why do I think that? A good question. Thanks for asking. :wink:

1) Kampman has a distinct advantage of having already played LB for a good chunk of his life.
2) His measurable are solid.
3) He is a smart player.
4) He is a dedicated worker and good technician.
5) He has a proven coaching staff behind him.
6.) He put on weight for the DE position and is still not that huge, making me think he can play lighter if need be.
7) Other OLBers have made the transition from DE with less experience, if any, in coverage.
6) I prefer to be hopeful that the Packers can be good, rather than always assume they will fail.

Why do you *think* he will be a fish out of water? What facts and reasoned conclusions do you have?

I think Kampman will be productive... he is a good football player. I just think you are taking a pro bowl calibur DE, a natural with his hand on the ground IMO. He is a 4-3 end IMO, and best suited there.

[mraynrand]

Google isn't that hard to use.

Bishop ran a 4.81 40 and 4.65 shuttle. And can't cover to save his life, nor can he catch a RB trying to turn the corner, hence Hawk started all year at MLB after Barnett went down. Bishop is a 2 down LB, just like Hodge was.

Didn't need Google - just needed to watch his first play after Barnett went down - all his deficiencies on display in one single play....uuuuugly!

[rbaloha1]

Google isn't that hard to use.

Bishop ran a 4.81 40 and 4.65 shuttle. And can't cover to save his life, nor can he catch a RB trying to turn the corner, hence Hawk started all year at MLB after Barnett went down. Bishop is a 2 down LB, just like Hodge was.

Didn't need Google - just needed to watch his first play after Barnett went down - all his deficiencies on display in one single play....uuuuugly!

Based on playing time how many impact plays did Bishop make versus Hawk? Who called out Hawk for the lack of impact plays despite all these great shuttle and cone numbers?

[Lurker64]

Based on playing time how many impact plays did Bishop make versus Hawk? Who called out Hawk for the lack of impact plays despite all these great shuttle and cone numbers?

Bishop is a guy who will make 1 impact play and then fail to catch an RB on the corner 9 out of 10 times. Hawk is a guy who will make 10 out of 10 plays, though none of them will be spectacular. He's assignment sure, a great tackler, he can cover, and he doesn't make mistakes.

The 2-down MLB who blows a guy up every once in a while and sometimes has a ball tipped into his hands (Hodge, Bishop, Maualuga) will always receive much more admiration from fans than he deserves.

The solid, dependable WLB who does exactly what is asked of him every time in a MLB-centric defense is always going to get much less admiration than he deserves.

Bishop's just a guy you're happy to have as a backup and for goal-line situations. He's a character guy with some leadership ability who is a good special teamer and worth keeping around. He'll never start in this league though.

[Waldo]

Often by putting yourself in position to not give up a play, you take yourself out of position to make an impact play. Overpursuit.....jumping routes.....exciting, exciting stuff. But not as difficult as perfect pursuit and good coverage.

Barnett by far has the best pursuit of any defender. He instantly breaks on where a play is going when it shows itself to be going that way, and not a second too soon (unlike Bishop and Hodge, who break early and make a few "big plays" because of it (never mind the torchings)). Hawk is a half step slow, then again that is the WLB in him coming out, that I'm pretty sure was coached into him by Sanders because he didn't play like that in college.

[rbaloha1]

The issue is Coach Moss called out Hawk for his lack of impact plays (forced fumbles, interceptions, fumble recoveries, tfl, sacks, etc.). This is an important component of how the Packers evaluate linebackers.

Hawk was called the safest pick in the draft. Drafted to be an Urlacher type player making impact plays. IMO Hawk has failed in this aspect and is another example of a combine stat guy (although he was somewhat productive in an overrated big 10. sorry badger fans). Hawk is a disappointment and should not be resigned.

Bishop had coverage issues when first playing. Gradually improved with more playing time and practice reps. The guy first plays were fresh off the bench and with very little regular season playing time.

Against the Texans in one half, Bishop had almost as many impact plays Hawk had for the season. Thus Coach Moss called out Hawk for his lack of impact plays which hurts the team. Imagine Hawk with some impact plays like the secondary. Maybe a few games go the Packers way.

Bishop is a pleasant surprise. Nice gains from season 1 to season 2 as TT mentioned. Does not have Hawk's athleticism but much better lb instincts. If Bishop is provided the reps and playing opportunities Bishop outperforms Hawk.

Enough of the Hawk apologists. The guy plays hard but shall never be clsoe to the hype.

[Waldo]

Bishop is physically incapable of covering. It is not teachable. Franks could beat him, he just isn't fast enough to hack it as an every down LB at the NFL level at anything more than a 3-4 jack backer.

You also have to step back and realize what you are asking of Hawk. Has a WLB ever been an impact player in a Johnson/Bates/Sanders scheme? When you ask the guy to be a DB and hang back and prevent the play from cutting against the grain, and leave a gaping holes between the ends and tackles that are easy for teams to send blockers through, really, we drafted one of the best LB prospects ever and have asked him to do his best Al Harris impression on pass plays and be nothing more than a lead block eater or backside safety on run plays. He isn't asked schematically to be an impact player. We're lucky Hawk is such a good guy, were I him I would have asked to be traded already, Sanders was destroying his career. I really don't think that MM wanted to fire Sanders, and I am always agaisnt firing coaches, but Sanders is by far the most incompetent coordinator I've ever seen, he simply had to go, our defense is so much more talented than the results, they were put in a position to fail in a defense that doesn't work.

Sanders scheme was nothing more than a 3-4 without one of the DE's. Essentially a 2-5. You may call them "down lineman", but Sanders put the DE's where OLB's are supposed to play and asked them to have the same assignments that OLB's have. Our DE's didn't have to be stout at the POA, they had to hold outside contain. That leaves 2 DT's defending agaisnt 5 blockers. You can see why his run defense wasn't successful, nor was it really ever over the course of the history of the defense. The concept was to use essentially 2 3-4 NT's as DT's so you would only need 2 instead of a NT and 2 DE/DT hybrids, thus allowing an extra linebacker on the field. If the Johnson/Bates/Sanders scheme was so good, why were we the only team in the NFL running anything like it? You know what the side effect of DT's that couldn't pull off the absurdity of what was required? Crappy LB play.

With Hawk moving to jack backer and new coaching, I expect a huge turnaround for him. He is now asked to be the hardnosed banger. Jack is what Ray Lewis plays. He no longer has to worry about the cutback, misdirestion or whatnot, he is the playside backer and he has Barnett behind him to take care of all his worries. Destroying the guy with the ball and covering the strong flat in zone is now his new task. It should eb much easier for him to rush the passer given that there won't be a guard dedicated to blocking him on most of his blitzes, as was the case with Sanders' D. Why Sanders called blitzes to the gap with the unrushed G is beyond me, but he did, always.

[SnakeLH2006]

The issue is Coach Moss called out Hawk for his lack of impact plays (forced fumbles, interceptions, fumble recoveries, tfl, sacks, etc.). This is an important component of how the Packers evaluate linebackers.

Hawk was called the safest pick in the draft. Drafted to be an Urlacher type player making impact plays. IMO Hawk has failed in this aspect and is another example of a combine stat guy (although he was somewhat productive in an overrated big 10. sorry badger fans). Hawk is a disappointment and should not be resigned.

Bishop had coverage issues when first playing. Gradually improved with more playing time and practice reps. The guy first plays were fresh off the bench and with very little regular season playing time.

Against the Texans in one half, Bishop had almost as many impact plays Hawk had for the season. Thus Coach Moss called out Hawk for his lack of impact plays which hurts the team. Imagine Hawk with some impact plays like the secondary. Maybe a few games go the Packers way.

Bishop is a pleasant surprise. Nice gains from season 1 to season 2 as TT mentioned. Does not have Hawk's athleticism but much better lb instincts. If Bishop is provided the reps and playing opportunities Bishop outperforms Hawk.

Enough of the Hawk apologists. The guy plays hard but shall never be clsoe to the hype.

Agreed..I like Hawk but his inflated Big-10 numbers/combine stuff was too much. He's OK, but I can't for the life of me remember Hawk making a big play. Is he assignment sure...for the most part, but I remember many times where even the broadcasters said Hawk got toasted in coverage.

I like Hawk, but in the little Bishop has played that dude makes plays. I could care less about 40 times, etc. as whether it be preseason or the few times he got on the field he changed plays by absolutely toasting a RB, making sacks, fumble recoveries, etc. Bishop makes plays. That's what the game is about.

Some PR's got a hard on to resign Montgomery, but I'd rewind play after play where he was out of position (huge play for the other team, etc) on my HD-DVR..Montgomery sucks balls hard.

Bishop is not that bad in coverage, but that is not what he was asked to do at MLB. Dude makes plays and fires up the team. Seriously, I was excited for Hawk but it's been several years now, and that dude is a zombie...no emotion, life...would you rally behind that guy if you played on D for GB? No...Kampy and Barnett are the front 7 leaders by far, but Bishop WILL play a significant role this year. Hawk gets the nod because of status/contract...but I'll be damned if Bishop doesn't contribute as a starter or significant other in 2009. Dude's a fucking beast...kinda like Kampy, a guy overlooked for years that has a tireless ticker that will make plays.

As far as Kampy...I'm not concerned at all...good football players make plays. I doubt 4 weeks into the season someone on PR makes a topic about how bad Kampy is at OLB.

[The Leaper]

Personally, I expect Kampman to be traded.

I love Kampy, but I think he's seen the bulk of his best days already. He'll probably still be a very good starter for another 1-2 years...but I saw a decline in Kampman last year. Granted, he didn't have a capable pass rusher across from him...but even one-on-one he wasn't as much an impact player in 2008 as he was previously.

His trade value is still relatively high...get what you can for him that FITS our 3-4 scheme rather than try to make him into something he really isn't.

[cpk1994]

Personally, I expect Kampman to be traded.

I love Kampy, but I think he's seen the bulk of his best days already. He'll probably still be a very good starter for another 1-2 years...but I saw a decline in Kampman last year. Granted, he didn't have a capable pass rusher across from him...but even one-on-one he wasn't as much an impact player in 2008 as he was previously.

His trade value is still relatively high...get what you can for him that FITS our 3-4 scheme rather than try to make him into something he really isn't.And you know for a fact he won't fit how? How about giving him a chance to actually PLAY in 3-4 to see if he can fit, instead of trading him becuase you ASSUME he won't fit?

This is one of my pet peeves on this issue. People want to get rid of guys like Barnett and Kampman becuase it is assumed they will not fit, even though there is no evidence to base this on becuase they have never played in a 3-4. I say, have faith in Dom Capers that he will use these guys in a way that they will succeed in this D.

[rbaloha1]

Personally, I expect Kampman to be traded.

I love Kampy, but I think he's seen the bulk of his best days already. He'll probably still be a very good starter for another 1-2 years...but I saw a decline in Kampman last year. Granted, he didn't have a capable pass rusher across from him...but even one-on-one he wasn't as much an impact player in 2008 as he was previously.

His trade value is still relatively high...get what you can for him that FITS our 3-4 scheme rather than try to make him into something he really isn't.

Generally I agree with you. Playing devil's advocate -- What if AK fails -- What is AK's trade value?

I am an AK fan but the scheme does not play to his strengths. Trade AK while the value is high. Rather have proven 3-4 players than speculative 3-4 players.

[rbaloha1]

Hawk could improve his play in this scheme. Nonetheless Hawk's play on the field is far from expectations given draft position. Recall -- almost went #2 to the Saints.

Mumbo jumbo explanations still do not excuse Hawk from lackluster performance. Lets hope the new scheme brings out Hawk's best.

[Lurker64]

Mumbo jumbo explanations still do not excuse Hawk from lackluster performance.

I really think it does, honestly. If you hire a guy with a lot of talent, intelligence, and potential and you just have him moving bricks from one pile to another all day, can you really be disappointed when he doesn't amaze you? There's just not that much you can do to impress someone moving bricks around.

Hawk was basically playing in a defense that minimized his impact. When you misuse talent, you don't get very much out of it. What the Packers did with Hawk under Sanders is in large part equivalent to what it would be like if the Vikings primarily used Adrian Peterson as blitz pickup in the passing game, the difference being that Hawk was actually good at what he was asked to do, it's just that what he was asked to do was thankless and unspectacular.

[rbaloha1]

Mumbo jumbo explanations still do not excuse Hawk from lackluster performance.

I really think it does, honestly. If you hire a guy with a lot of talent, intelligence, and potential and you just have him moving bricks from one pile to another all day, can you really be disappointed when he doesn't amaze you? There's just not that much you can do to impress someone moving bricks around.

Hawk was basically playing in a defense that minimized his impact.

Lets wait and see. Unsure when Hawk's contract expires. Might be in 2010.

Recall Stink on espn ripped Hawk after the draft. Hoped stink was wrong bit has proven to be correct so far unlike Hodge who was completely wrong about AR.

[Lurker64]

Lets wait and see. Unsure when Hawk's contract expires. Might be in 2010.

Recall Stink on espn ripped Hawk after the draft. Hoped stink was wrong bit has proven to be correct so far unlike Hodge who was completely wrong about AR.

Who the hell is Stink? It's really not worth listening to the ESPN guys, for the record

The fact is that Hawk has basically done everything he was asked to do by the coaches, which results in the fans being disappointed in him since the coaches didn't ask him to do much of anything that would stand out.

But you don't get upset when you hire the best chef in the world and ask him to cook you Top Ramen everyday. Some things, even the most amazing talents in the world, aren't going to make spectacular.

[rbaloha1]

[quote=Lurker64]Lets wait and see. Unsure when Hawk's contract expires. Might be in 2010.

Recall Stink on espn ripped Hawk after the draft. Hoped stink was wrong bit has proven to be correct so far unlike Hodge who was completely wrong about AR.

Who the hell is Stink? It's really not worth listening to the ESPN guys, for the record

The fact is that Hawk has basically done everything he was asked to do by the coaches, which results in the fans being disappointed in him since the coaches didn't ask him to do much of anything that would stand out.

But you don't get upset when you hire the best chef in the world and ask him to cook you Top Ramen everyday. Some things, even the most amazing talents in the world, aren't going to make spectacular.

Stink is Mark Schelereth (sp?) the former Denver Broncos and Washington Redskins offensive lineman.

Stink watched numerous tape of Hawk and came away very unimpressed. Stink showed game tape of Hawk basically being a run around type that makes plays when unblocked. Stink showed plays Hawk being dominated when blocked.

When the talk was the Packers selecting Hawk, I watched an Ohio State bowl game. Excited to watch a future Packer. I was stunned to watch Hawk consistently unable to get off blocks.

Assignment sure yes. Hawk was called out because he needs to be more than just assignment sure.

[SnakeLH2006]

[quote=Lurker64]Lets wait and see. Unsure when Hawk's contract expires. Might be in 2010.

Recall Stink on espn ripped Hawk after the draft. Hoped stink was wrong bit has proven to be correct so far unlike Hodge who was completely wrong about AR.

Who the hell is Stink? It's really not worth listening to the ESPN guys, for the record

The fact is that Hawk has basically done everything he was asked to do by the coaches, which results in the fans being disappointed in him since the coaches didn't ask him to do much of anything that would stand out.

But you don't get upset when you hire the best chef in the world and ask him to cook you Top Ramen everyday. Some things, even the most amazing talents in the world, aren't going to make spectacular.

Stink is Mark Schelereth (sp?) the former Denver Broncos and Washington Redskins offensive lineman.

Stink watched numerous tape of Hawk and came away very unimpressed. Stink showed game tape of Hawk basically being a run around type that makes plays when unblocked. Stink showed plays Hawk being dominated when blocked.

When the talk was the Packers selecting Hawk, I watched an Ohio State bowl game. Excited to watch a future Packer. I was stunned to watch Hawk consistently unable to get off blocks.

Assignment sure yes. Hawk was called out because he needs to be more than just assignment sure.

Agreed, but now that Snake thinks about it, maybe Hawk's best days are ahead. He's always in insane shape...has plenty of intangibles, toughness, speed, etc. And I do agree maybe he wasn't utilized very well, but damn if he wasn't underwhelming. Why was Bishop such a standout out in the little he had to play at MLB?

Perhaps and probably he will excel in a new scheme that features LB's as I think he could be a force at pass-rush, and wouldn't be surprised if he DID have a great year.

[Lurker64]

Why was Bishop such a standout out in the little he had to play at MLB?

I think the issue is thus: Bishop (and Hodge, and Maualuga) are the sort of LB that will commit to wherever they think the ball is going as soon as they suspect it is going there. Sometimes they are right, and they will just blow up a guy in the hole and/or develop a killing blow, but they are prone to being found out of position on things like misdirection plays, cutbacks, and play action passes. These guys will make plays, but they will also sometimes give up plays. Generally you call them "two down linebackers" because you take them off the field in crucial third down situations where "being caught by a play-fake" can be fatal. This type of player will get caught a lot by cagey play calling, because they frequently guess as to what the offense is doing on any given play, and they will sometimes guess wrong, with varying levels of bad results.

Hawk and Barnett, on the other hand, are high quality examples of the read and react type of linebackers. As soon as they are sure of the direction a play is going, they go that way. As a result, they will not as often just kill the RB as he comes to the hole like a guy like Bishop might, but they will much, much less often end up committing to the wrong gap and giving up a play, like someone like Bishop (or Hodge) might. These guys won't get you killed, but they won't deliver the killing blows that get the fans excited like Bishop and Hodge did. The thing that makes Barnett and Hawk better than your average R&R LB, is that their recognition, explosion, and change of direction skills are top notch. Some guys, like Chillar, will try to play that sort of game, but will be woeful at every aspect of it other than coverage because they simply do not react quickly or decisively enough.

Bishop is primarily on this team for his special teams ability (which is considerable), and the fact that he's a good high-intensity/high-character guy and a serviceable backup who will periodically make plays in run support or in goal line situations. Hodge is basically the same player, but he couldn't cut it on STs. Neither one will ever really be more than a 2-down player in this league. They're guys that will make you plays, but they may well give up more than they make.

[SnakeLH2006]

Why was Bishop such a standout out in the little he had to play at MLB?

I think the issue is thus: Bishop (and Hodge, and Maualuga) are the sort of LB that will commit to wherever they think the ball is going as soon as they suspect it is going there. Sometimes they are right, and they will just blow up a guy in the hole and/or develop a killing blow, but they are prone to being found out of position on things like misdirection plays, cutbacks, and play action passes. These guys will make plays, but they will also sometimes give up plays. Generally you call them "two down linebackers" because you take them off the field in crucial third down situations where "being caught by a play-fake" can be fatal. This type of player will get caught a lot by cagey play calling, because they frequently guess as to what the offense is doing on any given play, and they will sometimes guess wrong, with varying levels of bad results.

Hawk and Barnett, on the other hand, are high quality examples of the read and react type of linebackers. As soon as they are sure of the direction a play is going, they go that way. As a result, they will not as often just kill the RB as he comes to the hole like a guy like Bishop might, but they will much, much less often end up committing to the wrong gap and giving up a play, like someone like Bishop (or Hodge) might. These guys won't get you killed, but they won't deliver the killing blows that get the fans excited like Bishop and Hodge did. The thing that makes Barnett and Hawk better than your average R&R LB, is that their recognition, explosion, and change of direction skills are top notch. Some guys, like Chillar, will try to play that sort of game, but will be woeful at every aspect of it other than coverage because they simply do not react quickly or decisively enough.

Bishop is primarily on this team for his special teams ability (which is considerable), and the fact that he's a good high-intensity/high-character guy and a serviceable backup who will periodically make plays in run support or in goal line situations. Hodge is basically the same player, but he couldn't cut it on STs. Neither one will ever really be more than a 2-down player in this league. They're guys that will make you plays, but they may well give up more than they make.

Wow. That is an intelligent post if Snake has seen one on PR. I do agree with most all, but am sticking with a gut instinct that Bishop can/will play. Hawk and Barnett are good at what they do...and don't get me wrong, as I do like the exciting play, but I truly feel that Bishop can bring some stuff at LB in the future. I may be wrong as I feel Hawk will have a breakthrough year, but I just have a good feeling about Bishop.

[The Leaper]

And you know for a fact he won't fit how? How about giving him a chance to actually PLAY in 3-4 to see if he can fit, instead of trading him becuase you ASSUME he won't fit?

I'm guessing he is traded because his best days are behind him...regardless of scheme or otherwise.

Seriously, you think a guy who has spent years with his hand on the ground as a pass rusher is going to surprise as a Pro Bowl LB in a 3-4 immediately? Even if Kampy can get used to pass coverage and other aspects to being a 3-4 LB that he hasn't had to even consider for years, it will take him 8-10 games to really get comfortable in the role. For much of the year, he will be getting his bearings.

Kampy still has plenty of trade value...so why not use it to acquire someone who DOES have 3-4 experience?

[Joemailman]

Where you going to acquire a guy with 3-4 experience? Probably from a team that runs a 3-4 defense. If Kampman is as bad a fit for a 3-4 defense as you say, why would a 3-4 team want to trade a 3-4 player for Kampman?

What to do about the draft? Should we stay away from the Demarcus Ware types who are going to have to switch from a 4-3 DE to a 3-4 OLB because they don't have 3-4 experience? Good football players will adjust, and good coaches will put guys in situations where they can be successful.

[vince]

Some people IMO are putting far too much importance on the act of bending over and putting one's hand on the ground prior to the football being snapped. After that point, there just isn't as much difference in what Kamp has demonstrated the ability to do and what he will be asked to do as many apparently believe there is.

Listen to the coaches who've made the transition - guys like Dom Capers and Wade Phillips. I'm pretty sure they know about that which they speak.

He can cover a spot in the flat - particularly for the time and amount he'll be asked to do so. Plus, anyone rushing the passer would love to have more space in which to operate. It gives them more options - and the o-lineman opposing him more to worry about.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Interesting articles.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/40066757.html

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/40068242.html

[rbaloha1]

Interesting articles.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/40066757.html

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/40068242.html

Even AK admits its going to take time for the conversion. This is not photoshop guys.

[Lurker64]

Even AK admits its going to take time for the conversion. This is not photoshop guys.

Well, that's obvious. Any time you get a new scheme, it takes time to learn it. If we were switching from a Bates 4-3 to a Gregg Williams 4-3, it would take time for everybody to learn their new positions. This isn't something special about the 3-4 and the 4-3, it's just that "learning takes time".

Thankfully it's February, and nobody's really going to be playing any meaningful tames for the next 6 months.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Even AK admits its going to take time for the conversion. This is not photoshop guys.

I trust with Kampman's athleticism, hard work, and knowledge that it won't be long before he's comfortable. I think the fact offenses won't be able to target him will prove to be beneficial. Until then, AK74 is the least of my worries.

[Patler]

Greg Ellis was a DE in high school, a DE in college and a DE with the Cowboys for 7 years before being asked to switch to LB in a 3-4 at age 30.

Aaron Kampman was one of the nation's leading recruits as a linebacker in high school, making Parade Magazine and USA Today All-American teams as a high school linebacker. He played two seasons in the Big Ten, starting one season as a linebacker. Then played two college seasons and 7 NFL seasons as a DE before being asked to switch to LB in a 3-4 at age 29.

Greg Ellis made the switch without a major problem. Shouldn't it be easier for Kampman who knows how to play linebacker? Does anyone expect Kampman to work less hard at it than Ellis did?

[Fritz]

Kampman has not said anything about this switch yet, has he?

[Patler]

Kampman has not said anything about this switch yet, has he?

Bedard's blog a few days back said he ran into someone who knows Kampman very well, and said Kampman is excited about the move. He has been in touch with Green to discuss it. Green told him it will extend his career 3-4 years not having to deal with OTs every play.

[Fritz]

Also just saw the TT interview, and TT says he spoke with Kampman, who seems excited by it. Cool. TT also said though that they'll be in base proly less than in sub packages, so Kamp will play a lot in the manner he's used to, anyway.