Another Inflexible Coordinator?

Really interesting quote from Aaron Kampman (via Greg Bedard's Packers Daily Briefing):

I love getting after the passer. I have a year’s worth of built up energy to get back out there and get back after the quarterback and I look forward to doing it.I haven’t been in my stance. All off-season last year, they didn’t let me get in my stance once. I was in the two point stance on the left side. It seems to be a perfect time to switch over and make that transition.

Emphasis mine.

What was that we were reading about Capers last summer?

Capers has emphasized all offseason that he can adjust the scheme and his calls to his personnel, and that he will mix in the 4-3 if needed in this season of defensive transition.

Hmmmm.....

 

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.

__________________________

0 points
 

Comments (30)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
NickGBP's picture

March 09, 2010 at 02:04 pm

Capers FAIL if true. Kampman had previously stated that he had the freedom to go back in the dirt, but he chose not to so he could learn his new responsibilities. I mean even if he did put his hand downs the scheme is still going to be a bit different regardless. I think he might be exaggerating a bit here because he's happy to go back to doing what's comfortable to him. Seems like a guy really set in his ways.

0 points
0
0
FITZCORE1252's picture

March 09, 2010 at 02:08 pm

I don't know. Square peg, round hole... wasn't gonna work no matter how you sliced it. I definitely think Dom shifted the D to best use his talent... see Psycho.

0 points
0
0
NickGBP's picture

March 09, 2010 at 02:10 pm

Psycho worked in one or two games because teams hadn't gameplanned for it. Next year they'll need to be a lot more creative with it for it to work in the long term. I hope they get some more movement in all of their packages honestly.

0 points
0
0
FITZCORE1252's picture

March 09, 2010 at 02:14 pm

What's your point? I just used Psycho to illustrate Dom's willingness to alter his D to play to the strengths of his available talent (you know what Nagler's post is about); nothing to do with its effectiveness.

GBP 4 LIFE

0 points
0
0
PackersRS's picture

March 09, 2010 at 02:23 pm

I think that the "adjust the scheme" thing was just outside talk.
-
My opinion is that Kampman was used strickly at the 2 point stance so he could transition quickier, and that when they realized that they wouldn't be able to continue solely using him that way, they switched back.
-
But yeah, it could've been plain incompetence. Fact is Capers failed adapting when facing a QB with a quick release and great feel for coverages, not calling for bumps and such. So it wouldn't surprise me if he was just incompetent with Kampman.
-
But I want to believe in the first option...

0 points
0
0
NickGBP's picture

March 09, 2010 at 02:24 pm

"What’s your point? I just used Psycho to illustrate Dom’s willingness to alter his D to play to the strengths of his available talent (you know what Nagler’s post is about); nothing to do with its effectiveness."

So explain to me how the Psycho takes advantage of his players' specific talents? He introduced it as part of a process of implementing his plays and packages to a transitioning team. Nothing about the scheme (as far as we know) was implemented because of the players...it's just part of the playbook that he eventually put into a gameplan. I just think that's a poor example.
.
I think a good example is using Woodson at safety, corner, nickel, and lineback to put him in position to make plays. Something Colonel Sanders never wouldve done

0 points
0
0
NickGBP's picture

March 09, 2010 at 02:33 pm

Also, I mis-read the quote. Missed the OFF-season part. He's just saying all off-season he was learning his new position. Of course he was. He's not really saying much here...just that he's happy to be back in a 4-3 position.

0 points
0
0
nypacker's picture

March 09, 2010 at 02:35 pm

Well I think this post is BOTH right and wrong. Kampman didn't put his hand down in the offseason but in the regular season Browns game I definitely remember him rushing as a DE.

0 points
0
0
PackerAaron's picture

March 09, 2010 at 02:37 pm

nypacker - Indeed, he addresses that, saying he did get down in a 2 point, buy never the 3 point (one hand on the ground) - in the CLE game and one or two others you finally saw him in a 2 point stance - but why on EARTH do you not let the guy rush from the position he's most comfortable in? Esp on 3rd down? Makes no sense to me.

0 points
0
0
FITZCORE1252's picture

March 09, 2010 at 02:47 pm

Nick,

"So explain to me how the Psycho takes advantage of his players’ specific talents?"

Is that a serious question?
If you have to ask, you're not worth telling.

Now I remember why I stopped reading your posts... I think I'm gonna go back to that.

I'll check up on you in 5 years, see if you've stepped your game up... I'm rooting for ya kid.

PEACE

GBP 4 LIFE

0 points
0
0
NickGBP's picture

March 09, 2010 at 02:49 pm

Re-read the quote. He says all OFF-SEASON he was not able to put his hand in the dirt. During the season (based on his previous comments) he had the option to put his hand down but he chose not to. It makes sense that during the off season he would learn the new position. During the season (again, based on previous Kampman comments) he was given the option to put his hand down but only opted to in one game (and then was subsequently injured in the following if I remember correctly). So again this doesn't really say much about Capers except that he wanted Kampman to learn the new stances he'd be in during the OFF season (training camp, etc).

0 points
0
0
NickGBP's picture

March 09, 2010 at 02:58 pm

Fitz I'll take your refusal to answer as evidence you dont know what the hell you're talking about.

Here's another example. I am building a house. This process takes 2 years (bear with me...I'm not in construction). You start with setting up the foundation so you can construct the frame on top of it. You build the frame, etc etc. About halfway through I have my workers install windows for the house. This isn't flexibility or adaptability...this is implementing a plan you already had in place a year ago. You haven't tailored this to your workers strengths...you just couldn't do the windows because the other pieces of the construction weren't ready yet.
.
Hopefully that sinks in for you. I don't think it needs to be explained any further.

0 points
0
0
D.D. Driver's picture

March 09, 2010 at 03:02 pm

I'm not a huge Capers fan (I'm not a Capers detractor, either, I am more agnostic).
----
However, I have zero problem with Capers forcing Kampman to practice the 2 point stance all offseason. We already knew what to expect with Kampman working out of the 3 or 4 point stance. What was additional offseason work going to prove? Might as well use every bit of offseason practice time trying to get Kampman comfortable working out of a 2 point stance.
----
The Kampman experiment was dumb. I said it was dumb at the time. But it was last year and it is time to move on. There is no point in second-guessing now, especially by folks who were gung ho about the scheme change and trying to fit Kampman into the new sceheme (up until the time that it didn't work that is).

0 points
0
0
PackerAaron's picture

March 09, 2010 at 03:18 pm

DD - for the record, I'm pretty sure I was gung-ho about the scheme change (still am) but reticent on Kampman's place in it. I did think trading him was foolish, if only because it would mean counting on Brady Poppinga and Jeremy Thompson to provide a pass rush.

0 points
0
0
Ron LC's picture

March 09, 2010 at 03:24 pm

Any problems with the Packer D last year were not with the LB's Kampman was just put in a position that was 180 degree's from his strength. The DB's lacked the necesary depth. Normal learning and confussion were most of the issue earlier on.
_____

When Harris went down it was obvious that the "nickel" and "dime" were big problems. If that can be related to inflexibilty, I agree. I don't think it has anything to do with flexibility. It was plain and simple lack of talentin the DB. If you don't have talent there nothing will help you no matter how flexibile you are.

0 points
0
0
dilligaff's picture

March 09, 2010 at 03:30 pm

I think this whole Kampman situation is MM and TT fault, Capers has been around and knows this defense and the combinations you can run with it. MM's and TT's insistence that Kampman can make this transition, against Kampmans silent cries for help, was just plain crazy. Capers job was to bring the 3-4 defense to the Green Bay Packers, not to make a square peg fit a round hole. I feel TT is doing the same thing with Hawk, Capers does not like this guy with what he wants to do, yet there is pressure from TT to make it happen using Hawk. Just crazy, get over your past idols and make the transition complete. We all new there was going to be a price to be paid for switching to the 3-4, lets get it done.

0 points
0
0
CSS's picture

March 09, 2010 at 03:37 pm

You're making quite a leap with some of the above statements, dilligaff. It's one thing to speculate and observe, it's another to be so definitive in your presentation you make it sound as though you're on the 'inside' with these personnel discussions and know, for example, that Capers, "does not like this guy with what he wants to do...."

Come on, really?!? Any quote or even anything we have on record where we can even infer any of this? I'm all for speculation, but you're presenting it like you're literally a 'fly on the wall'.

0 points
0
0
dilligaff's picture

March 09, 2010 at 03:53 pm

CSS, I always read in between the lines and take concrete things and try to come up with a diagnoses, its not perfect by any means, but with your logic I should believe everything a Politician and insurance salesman tells me. I think not. I admit I am going on gut feeling with Hawk, putting 2 and 2 together with what Kampman has been saying and what I can see on the field.

0 points
0
0
CSS's picture

March 09, 2010 at 03:58 pm

Don't put words in my mouth or say 'by my logic.' I put forth nothing of the sort. Where did I say you should believe everything anybody says. You're doing the opposite, you're making it sound as though something at all were said. Your analogy towards my supposed logic rings hollow, makes no sense.

That's all fine, dilgaff, but you're extrapolating to the point of putting words in coaches mouths that are neither uttered nor implied. No offense, but if FEELS as though it's a fan personalizing their own dissapointment/disgust with a player (Hawk).

I'm just asking, reading between what lines? Your observation, or statements that coaches have uttered related to his play?

0 points
0
0
Ruppert's picture

March 09, 2010 at 04:44 pm

Suggesting that Capers is inflexible because he wouldn't blitz more during our worst pass D games may make some sense to me. But I don't really see where this illustrates inflexibility on his part. If it's because he didn't use more of a 43/34 mix, maybe he didn't think he had to. The straight 34 was pretty good last year. I dunno...Could he have gotten more production from Kampman last year? I don't know that he really could have. I guess I think we're just better off with an inflexible Capers than a more flexible Col. Sanders.

0 points
0
0
dilligaff's picture

March 09, 2010 at 04:47 pm

CSS, you asking for facts and statements and I have told there are none, just a gut feeling. I don't see where I have put words in coaches mouths, except their bold statements about how Kampman was going to make the transition of which there were many. IMO I believe that TT wants his investment and high pick in Hawk to work out (I don't see how this is so far off base), Capers coming in well after this (having no loyalty or promises to Hawk) I believe would rather have a LB better suited to his needs. Capers using a healthy Hawk in a shut out of the lions for only 9 reps is a clear statement to me. You don't have to read in between the lines with me on my feelings about Hawk, IMO is not a good fit for this defense.

0 points
0
0
nerdmann's picture

March 09, 2010 at 05:28 pm

1: Kampy needed the reps in the two point stance.
2: TT could not trade Kampy last offseason, because of what had transpired the previous summer. Also, because they didn't have anyone better with which to replace him.
3: The defense did not cost us the Cardinals game. The offense had two turnovers in its first three plays, both in the red zone of the best red zone team in the league last year. Plus it was the offense that turned the ball over on the final play. That ain't on the defense.
4: The 3-4 is better than the 4-3. It presents an element of surprise on every play.
5: Bob Sanders sucked.

0 points
0
0
CSS's picture

March 09, 2010 at 05:30 pm

What you stated above is a completly fair and well referenced opinion, a significant shift from the prior post.

0 points
0
0
PackersRS's picture

March 09, 2010 at 05:41 pm

nerdmann, you're actually going to make the case that, while we put up 45 points, we allowed 45 also (that last 7 I take off) and yet it wasn't the Defense?
-
Is the game only played in 3 minutes, or is it 60?
-
Yes, ultimately, it was the O that failed. But who really costed us the game, the unit that was most to blame, was the defense.

0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

March 09, 2010 at 06:09 pm

The fact that "All off season" they didn't allow Aaron Kampman to get into a 3 point stance says one thing to me:

The Packers already knew Aaron Kampman can come off the edge from a three point stance, and what he needed to do was focus on playing out of a two point stance.

I think this is a stretch to tie that one small statement into a bigger plot that Capers isn't flexible, but hey, who knows? I just don't get that vibe- just that Kampman was really uncomfortable playing LB.

0 points
0
0
cow42's picture

March 09, 2010 at 06:52 pm

kampman didn't fit - obvious. but what's kind of amazing to me is how many players actually DID fit. the defense was definitely exposed against elite offenses but i expected much worse. it thought it was going to take a couple years to get things going. in my opinion capers did an incredible job considering it was his first year taking over a 4/3 team with 4/3 personnel.
-
how creative could the guy actually get? i bet he was still teaching the basics of his defense well into the year. you can't get creative until you've got the basic stuff nailed down.

0 points
0
0
nerdmann's picture

March 09, 2010 at 08:47 pm

Yes, RS. I put that loss squarely on the offense. The defense gave up points, but we were playing against a pretty good team. It's the playoffs. You don't give up 3 red zone turnovers and expect to win.

0 points
0
0
PackersRS's picture

March 09, 2010 at 09:15 pm

nerdmann, you got to be kidding me. You honestly believe that though our offense put up incredibles 45 points, and our defense allowed incredibles 45 points, that it was the offense? You TRULLY believe that?
-
Like you said, it's the playoffs. You don't freaking allow 45 points and expect to win. NEVER happened.
-
Am I really having this discussion? Let's make like this: Next time, we just play offense. Let's count every possession the opposite team have as a TD and an extra point.
-
So if the offense makes any mistakes, despite playing out of their mind for most of the game, we lose the game. That should be the NFL rules...

0 points
0
0
PackersRS's picture

March 09, 2010 at 09:16 pm

BTW, no word on the next Don Hutson that the Packers just signed????

0 points
0
0
Nypacker's picture

March 09, 2010 at 09:50 pm

Honestly by the time overtime hit during that wildcard game, i couldn't care less whether or not the pack won. If our defense couldn't sustain Kurt warner, what makes you think we could've fared any better than the superbowl winning saints offense?

0 points
0
0