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

I'd prefer that we'd trade him away. Now just because we'd get rid of Kampman and get a draft pick, but also because we'd actually draft another DE/OLB. Right now, I don't see him invest another pick in the position when we have Matthews, Kampman, Jones and Thompson at OLB.

"Rockmolder" wrote:



How bout if they keep Kampy for his rush ability in nickel, trade Jeremy Thompson, who barely saw the field, to a 4-3 team for a 4th or 5th, and draft another ROLB who fits the 3-4 scheme better?

"get_louder_at_lambeau" wrote:



Our nickel is a 2-4-5. Even in that, he's a LB. I've seen him put his hand on the ground in that one, but doesn't that pretty much take away the whole point of a 3-4?

"Rockmolder" wrote:



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.

Thompson has played standing up in college. From what I've heared, he's more fluent, better in his drop backs. And you're not going to get a 4th or 5th for a guy who didn't manage to get a sack in his rookie season and hasn't been healthy the year after.



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.
Rockmolder
15 years ago

I'd prefer that we'd trade him away. Now just because we'd get rid of Kampman and get a draft pick, but also because we'd actually draft another DE/OLB. Right now, I don't see him invest another pick in the position when we have Matthews, Kampman, Jones and Thompson at OLB.

"get_louder_at_lambeau" wrote:



How bout if they keep Kampy for his rush ability in nickel, trade Jeremy Thompson, who barely saw the field, to a 4-3 team for a 4th or 5th, and draft another ROLB who fits the 3-4 scheme better?

"Rockmolder" wrote:



Our nickel is a 2-4-5. Even in that, he's a LB. I've seen him put his hand on the ground in that one, but doesn't that pretty much take away the whole point of a 3-4?

"get_louder_at_lambeau" wrote:



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.

Thompson has played standing up in college. From what I've heared, he's more fluent, better in his drop backs. And you're not going to get a 4th or 5th for a guy who didn't manage to get a sack in his rookie season and hasn't been healthy the year after.

"Rockmolder" wrote:



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.
15 years ago

I'd prefer that we'd trade him away. Now just because we'd get rid of Kampman and get a draft pick, but also because we'd actually draft another DE/OLB. Right now, I don't see him invest another pick in the position when we have Matthews, Kampman, Jones and Thompson at OLB.

"Rockmolder" wrote:



How bout if they keep Kampy for his rush ability in nickel, trade Jeremy Thompson, who barely saw the field, to a 4-3 team for a 4th or 5th, and draft another ROLB who fits the 3-4 scheme better?

"get_louder_at_lambeau" wrote:



Our nickel is a 2-4-5. Even in that, he's a LB. I've seen him put his hand on the ground in that one, but doesn't that pretty much take away the whole point of a 3-4?

"Rockmolder" wrote:



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.

Thompson has played standing up in college. From what I've heared, he's more fluent, better in his drop backs. And you're not going to get a 4th or 5th for a guy who didn't manage to get a sack in his rookie season and hasn't been healthy the year after.

"get_louder_at_lambeau" wrote:



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.

"Rockmolder" wrote:



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.
djcubez
15 years ago
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.
15 years ago

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

"djcubez" wrote:



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.
djcubez
15 years ago

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

"get_louder_at_lambeau" wrote:



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.

"djcubez" wrote:


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.
15 years ago
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.
UserPostedImage
15 years ago

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

"djcubez" wrote:



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.

"get_louder_at_lambeau" wrote:


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.

"djcubez" wrote:



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.
all_about_da_packers
15 years ago

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.

"MassPackersFan" wrote:




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 ...
The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.
Fan Shout
dfosterf (9h) : It's my one day deal complaint dept. on shareholder meeting day
dfosterf (10h) : Probably a homer access credential intimidation kinda thing
dfosterf (10h) : Meathead "journalists" skip this, concentrating on operational revenue when convenient. They switch when net revenue is more favorable.
dfosterf (10h) : Resulting in an actual drop of net revenue of 12.5%. She is from Minnesota. Just sayin'
dfosterf (11h) : Any plans to hold Maureen Smith (CFO) accountable for a 95% drop in investment revenue?
Mucky Tundra (11h) : In your face, HBO!
Mucky Tundra (11h) : @ByRyanWood Mark Murphy: “A great source of pride of mine is that we were never on Hard Knocks.”
Mucky Tundra (11h) : *years
Mucky Tundra (11h) : @mattschneidman Mark Murphy says he anticipates “many Packers games” being played in Germany, Ireland and/or the U.K. over the next 5-10 yea
dfosterf (11h) : *cafeteria* I have hit my head also, so I sympathize
dfosterf (11h) : Possibly hit his head leaning into the glass protecting the food in the cafateria
dfosterf (11h) : Maybe a low flying drone
dfosterf (11h) : Did Savion Williams run into a goalpost or something?
Mucky Tundra (12h) : also, no bueno when a guy starts getting concussions right off the bat in his career
Zero2Cool (12h) : Concussion is worse. Banks probably vet off day via back booboo claim
Mucky Tundra (14h) : @AndyHermanNFL Jordy Nelson out at camp today. No word if he’s in play for one of the two open roster spots ; )
dfosterf (15h) : Is that better or worse than Banks bad back?
Zero2Cool (15h) : Savion concussion ... not good.
packerfanoutwest (24-Jul) : Aaron Rodgers’s first pass of first team period was picked off
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : tbh I didn't hear of his passing
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Cosby Show. Malcom Jamal Warner I think is real name
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : I was thinking of Ozzy and Hulk
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : Who's Theo?
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : How is Theo alliteration?
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : Bad week for people whose names are alliterations
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Hulk Hogan gone too.
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Oh, it's toe injury
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Hope it's not serious. that would stink
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Sounds like an ankle not a knee for Fields
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Ya Flaccp on Browns
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Maybe Tyrod Taylor instead
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : He's on Browns, right?
dfosterf (24-Jul) : They would probably go with Flacco is my guess if Fields out
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Fleece 'em again!
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Malik Willis might be someone Jets come after
packerfanoutwest (24-Jul) : Packers introduce 1923-inspired classic uniform, leather-look helmet
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Both LB Quay Walker and Rookie DB Micah Robinson have passed their physicals
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Happy to see site feels more snappy snappy
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : No sir. I did not.
dfosterf (23-Jul) : You didn't get free childcare when you were at work?
wpr (23-Jul) : These guys make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Pay for their own childcare.
dfosterf (23-Jul) : 2nd issue. Number 1 issue was no gameday childcare. 1 of 3 teams not providing it
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Suppose if locker room is main issue, we sitting pretty
wpr (23-Jul) : I thought so Mucky. In those useless player polls GB always rates high overall. Locker is a part of it.
Mucky Tundra (23-Jul) : Wasn't the locker room just updated like 6 or 7 years ago?
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I have forum updated on different site. We'll see how this one goes before going to that
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Elgton Jenkins has a back injury, is expect to end contract dispute
wpr (23-Jul) : It's funny the PA complained about the locker room. It wasn't that long ago it was top shelf. Things change in a hurry.
wpr (23-Jul) : The site is much more better.
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : NFLPA report said Packers lockerroom needed upgrade. Whining bout where you change?
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
11h / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

25-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

24-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

22-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.