I just can't see keeping him as we move forward with the 3-4.

How can that take away the whole point of a 3-4 when we're not even in a 3-4 alignment? I do get what you're saying, but in nickel the ROLB is pretty much gonna rush every snap, especially when someone like Kampy is in there.

Everyone would rather have a more complete ROLB who can still rush the QB as well as Kampy, but we currently don't have one and it's not a given that we'll find one. If we do get one, he's still primarily going to rush the QB in nickel, so unless he's near Kampy's level as a pass rusher we won't see much improvement in pass rush except for the confusion angle gained by dropping the ROLB on what, 10% of nickel snaps?

Kampy would also be available as the starting ROLB if resigned and no one else beats him out for the job, or could be used in a rotation and for depth. It wouldn't necessarily be that much of a part time gig, and the Packers have shown a willingness to pay good players for their services even if they may end up underutilized. They can afford it, especially with no CBA. It just seems to me that we're better with him on the roster than without him, and a decent trade could be very hard to engineer with his current status as a FA and all it entails.



Yeah, ya know his injury slipped my mind. He never saw the field much this year and he got beat out by a 7th round rookie, so I'm guessing he's not a great fit at OLB either.

---

He got injured, didn't fully come back and then got a neck stinger which was thought to maybe even be career threatening. I'll give him a flyer on this season.

And this is one of the problems I have with retaining Kampman. Pretty much what you're saying yourself. He's a great rusher in the nickel, if he's rushing, if he's allowed to put his hand down.

Firstly, that takes some of the creativity out of your defense. You can't have a purely one sided DE/OLB, or he has to be really dominant. A bit like Ware or Suggs. We don't have either in Kampman.

Secondly, you try to force a player into a defense, in which he only really fits as a 3rd down rushing specialist.

I know that these guys aren't just there for the taking and you can't just say that you're going to get a DE/OLB early in the draft this year, but maybe they could let this one roll out a bit. Look at some other options.

Heck, we could even try to get Berry out of retirement. Travis LaBoy is out there. I don't think that Kampman is good enough a player for the money that he'll want. Not in the 3-4.

I'm with you, except for the part about letting the money making the decision.

I don't see it as a bad thing to resign a high-effort, leader-by-example type guy like Kampy to a market value contract, even if he ends up underutilized due to the scheme. He's a veteran leader, he's a pass rusher, he's depth at a position of need, and he's a fan favorite. I say spend the money unless it gets crazy high, and because of his injury I don't think it will. They'll probably make a chunk of it back on jersey sales anyway with how popular he is.

If a more complete OLB ends up beating him out for playing time, all the better. If not, at least we still have a legit pass rusher opposite Matthews and more depth at OLB.

---

I'm assuming this means that Thompson has set a certain number in his head on how much he's willing to spend on keeping Kampman around. Just because he says the Packers will make an offer doesn't mean he's going to spend a lot of money on him.

The risky thing about tagging him is that we might end up actually keeping him a la Julius Peppers.

I don't see that as a big problem. If that's the worst thing that can happen, that just means the Packers pay something like $8.3 mil for a player who isn't worth that much money in an uncapped year. Not ideal, but not the end of the world either.

---

They'd pay A LOT more than that (average out the 5 highest paid players at his position) but yea, I see what you're saying. The only thing about tagging him like that is he probably would be a bit peeved so we'd only keep him for that one year.

Isn't it harder to trade someone who doesn't have a contract in place, just because a team doesn't want to give up draft pick(s) and then also have to fight through contract negotiations? I would think that signing him to a deal doesn't eliminate the possibility of trading him. In fact, it seems to help a potential trade along.

---

That's where I got that number. That was the franchise tag number for linebackers this year, unless you count the four grand that I rounded off as a lot more. I'm sure it will go up for 2010, but that's what it is now.

---

If a team is interested, and willing to give up a high draft pick that the Packers are content with, then I believe the Packers would allow them to to negotiate with Kampman to get a deal done.

Add to that the fact that tampering - as it is stated in the rules - happens quite a bit. So I wouldn't be surprised if a team makes overtures at Kampman through back-avenues, and the Packers ignore it if they do not think Kampman will be back at a reasonable number.



Personally, as I think about franchising Kampman more and more, I can see the huge drawback to it. Assuming the tag is around $8.3 million, that money is guaranteed. Obviously Kampman would want a long-term contract, but I think it's a safe guess to say he'd want somewhere around 8 million in the first year (through signing bonuses and base salaries) of a long term contract to match (or come close to matching) the compensation he would have normally gotten from the franchise tag.

For a guy coming off a pretty serious injury, one which people often say takes a year to fully return from, you have to wonder if the Packers are willing to pay Kampman at least 8 million in the first year of a long term contract. If he was like 27-28, then I could see them paying him that. He'll be 30 next year, and 31 a year later when he "should" be getting back to 100%.

There are definitely risks with Kampman that will have to be fully weighed ...

---