Can Kampman handle the switch to OLB?

[packrulz]

"All my young men are smart, so they know where they're going to fit in the scheme of things," said Greene, who recorded 160 career sacks with the Rams, Steelers, 49ers and Carolina Panthers during a 15-year career that ended in 1999. "They are all athletic. The thing is increasing your vision. You can't just look at one or two eligible receivers. You got to look at No. 3, where No. 4 is aligned and have an awareness of where the fifth guy is. It sounds pretty complicated, doesn't it? It is." Kevin Greene

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d810ff1d4&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true

[pbmax]

Normally I would have reservations about a first-time coach at the Pro Level being counted on to make one of the more difficult position transformations for the defense. But Greene's enthusiasm is infectious, even in print. I hope it translates to the field.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Kampman will not be as effective standing up as he is on the line. (I know he will continue to play end a lot in the new scheme.)

[sharpe1027]

Kampman will not be as effective standing up as he is on the line. (I know he will continue to play end a lot in the new scheme.)

Probably true, but we won't know for sure until we see the product on the field. A good scheme/coach can really help a player's production.

[Waldo]

Kampman will not be as effective standing up as he is on the line. (I know he will continue to play end a lot in the new scheme.)

Why?

[hoosier]

Kampman will not be as effective standing up as he is on the line. (I know he will continue to play end a lot in the new scheme.)

Everything I've seen has suggested that Capers's scheme will employ only two down lineman and three or four linebackers on passing downs. Kampman will surely be rushing the passer more than dropping into coverage on passing downs, but for what it's worth it sounds like he'll be doing it "standing up" instead of from 3pt stance.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Kampman will not be as effective standing up as he is on the line. (I know he will continue to play end a lot in the new scheme.)

Why?

Because he has made a living out of being far more agile than offensive tackles, yet still strong enough to have a bull rush threat that the OT has to account for. I don't think the chances are good that he will excel in open space where the athleticism bar is so much higher, he is more likely to be like Poppinga. Anything can happen, but the odds are against him.

[Waldo]

Kampman will not be as effective standing up as he is on the line. (I know he will continue to play end a lot in the new scheme.)

Why?

Because he has made a living out of being far more agile than offensive tackles, yet still strong enough to have a bull rush threat that the OT has to account for. I don't think the chances are good that he will excel in open space where the athleticism bar is so much higher, he is more likely to be like Poppinga. Anything can happen, but the odds are against him.

I really don't get what has changed? He has to drop into coverage 4 times a game. That's the problem?

His wide alignment in Sanders/Bates D was 3-4 OLB-like. His run/pass rush assignments were largely 3-4 OLB assignments in Sanders'/Bates' D. The only difference is stance and the few plays a game he drops.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The only difference is stance and the few plays a game he drops.

If by "stance" you mean whether is hand is on the ground, that is a big difference.

I find it hard to beleive that his role will be so little changed, Kampman's cool reception to the change indicates he sees it as a big deal. Are all rush ends natural fits to be a 3-4 linebacker? Would Ezra Johnson been a good 3-4 linebacker? Your statement indicates that the postion is essentially unchanged. I don't know enough to say whether you are right or wrong.

[Waldo]

The only difference is stance and the few plays a game he drops.

If by "stance" you mean whether is hand is on the ground, that is a big difference.

I find it hard to beleive that his role will be so little changed, Kampman's cool reception to the change indicates he sees it as a big deal. Are all rush ends natural fits to be a 3-4 linebacker? Would Ezra Johnson been a good 3-4 linebacker? Your statement indicates that the postion is essentially unchanged. I don't know enough to say whether you are right or wrong.

The % of players that tried to make the switch and failed is very low, unlike popular perception.

It is a high bust rate position for college players, but no different than 4-3 DE, which also is.

Guys that have to switch DE to OLB after making it as a DE almost always work out. The ones that don't, weren't very well suited (too big) to begin with, or had injury issues.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Who knows how it will work, but plenty of guys have handled the transition. I think he's athletic enough to handle it. I understand that he's a bit particular, but he seems to be taking on the challenge full bore.

[mraynrand]

Guys that have to switch DE to OLB after making it as a DE almost always work out. The ones that don't, weren't very well suited (too big) to begin with, or had injury issues.

Do you think KGB would have been able to transition? The prospect of KGB as a 3-4 OLB was repeatedly trotted out over the years. I shuddered to think of him in coverage. I recall him being very out of place in coverage in a game against the 'skins in 2004 in some zone blitz schemes, but that could have just been a by-product of the horribly ill-conceived D of Slo-wit.

[Patler]

Kampman will not be as effective standing up as he is on the line. (I know he will continue to play end a lot in the new scheme.)

Why?

Because he has made a living out of being far more agile than offensive tackles, yet still strong enough to have a bull rush threat that the OT has to account for. I don't think the chances are good that he will excel in open space where the athleticism bar is so much higher, he is more likely to be like Poppinga. Anything can happen, but the odds are against him.

Do you remember the game 2 or 3 years ago against the Vikings, when they tried the entire first half to block Kampman with just their tight end? Kampman had two sacks and a couple knockdowns in just the first half. The exciting thing about Kampman this year is that he might see matchups against TEs or backs more often.

[Waldo]

Guys that have to switch DE to OLB after making it as a DE almost always work out. The ones that don't, weren't very well suited (too big) to begin with, or had injury issues.

Do you think KGB would have been able to transition? The prospect of KGB as a 3-4 OLB was repeatedly trotted out over the years. I shuddered to think of him in coverage. I recall him being very out of place in coverage in a game against the 'skins in 2004 in some zone blitz schemes, but that could have just been a by-product of the horribly ill-conceived D of Slo-wit.

KGB dropping into a shallow zone? Sure....

Packer fans have been numbed by years of Bates/Sanders ball. "Coverage" does not necessarily mean doing what Al does (and the big gripe with Poppinga, he isn't very good at doing what Al does). It also means dropping to a set spot, standing there, and being in the way, and paying attention to the QB, like Gilbert used to do on occasion. Could KGB cover Olsen in M2M, nope, could he cover the hook zone and late flat, sure.

It has been a very long time since GB ran any sort of pure zone coverage, and not man within zone or pattern match. Closest we came recently is the cover-4 sticks that we ran in the middle of last year on 3rd down when Al was out (and we intercepted a lot of passes).

[SnakeLH2006]

Guys that have to switch DE to OLB after making it as a DE almost always work out. The ones that don't, weren't very well suited (too big) to begin with, or had injury issues.

Do you think KGB would have been able to transition? The prospect of KGB as a 3-4 OLB was repeatedly trotted out over the years. I shuddered to think of him in coverage. I recall him being very out of place in coverage in a game against the 'skins in 2004 in some zone blitz schemes, but that could have just been a by-product of the horribly ill-conceived D of Slo-wit.

KGB dropping into a shallow zone? Sure....

Packer fans have been numbed by years of Bates/Sanders ball. "Coverage" does not necessarily mean doing what Al does (and the big gripe with Poppinga, he isn't very good at doing what Al does). It also means dropping to a set spot, standing there, and being in the way, and paying attention to the QB, like Gilbert used to do on occasion. Could KGB cover Olsen in M2M, nope, could he cover the hook zone and late flat, sure.

It has been a very long time since GB ran any sort of pure zone coverage, and not man within zone or pattern match. Closest we came recently is the cover-4 sticks that we ran in the middle of last year on 3rd down when Al was out (and we intercepted a lot of passes).

Snake agrees as KGB wasn't just a liability at DE, but in coverage (thus his drop in snaps). Kampy is no Poppinga as he'll be fine (gray area but fine vs. what Popps could do) the 3 times a game he needs to drop back. He's basically playing the same position as the bull LB. He might (might) decline on pressures/sacks, but will be fine at OLB. Al Harris scares me much more in zone, than Kampy can/would.