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

[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="rbaloha"]

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.