Does Kampman Look Awkward In Coverage...?
By PackerAaron
Yes, yes he does.
Well, after hearing all offseason about Kampman's 'awkwardness' in coverage from everyone from Bedard to Pelissero to Nickel to Demovsky, I could not wait to see Kampman have to turn his hips and run. While we didn't get a real chance to see that, we did see him slide off into a hook zone on a third down where he looked...very...awkward.
After the game, Bedard took a question about this very play:
- Q: John Gehring, MI - Hi Greg. Early in GB's first defensive series, Cleveland was facing a third down and five or six to go - a clear passing situation. The ball is snapped, and Kampman, instead of rushing the passer, is dropping into coverage, and Cleveland gains a first down directly in front of Kampman and Poppinga. I understand that Kampman will have to cover sometimes, but why in the world would you ever have Kampman dropping into coverage on third down? Was it just a preseason thing? I sure hope so.
- A: Greg A. Bedard - Oh no, he'll be doing that during the season. They're not taking their best pass rusher off the field
Let me expand on this a bit.
John is partly right in that it is a 'pre-season' thing and they are running as many different coverages as they can to get ready for the regular season. And yes, you'd like to have your best pass rusher rushing on every third down. The problem comes when the offensive coordinator realizes that this is your plan and proceeds to take advantage of you, calling for bubble screens and wheel routes toward Kampman's side of the field every time they are faced with a third down.
Will Kampman rush the passer more than drop into coverage? Of course. But Capers will occasionally have to call for Kampman to cover on third down. He looked shaky on that particular play Saturday night. My feeling is his showing will improve in this area, but not by much. It will be up to Capers to keep the opposition guessing.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Comments (13)
August 17, 2009 at 09:15 am
On the other hand, it seemed like our defense was in their backfield all night. I'll gladly take Kampman giving up a first down on 3rd and 5 for regular pressure all game long. If Kampman were rushing the QB in every passing situation, we might as well be playing a 3-4. It's a trade off that has to be made in order to avoid the predictability that was such a big problem last year.
August 17, 2009 at 09:50 am
It will also be up to Capers to give Kampman sufficient help in coverage. I discussed Kampman in my Packers Lounge article today.
PackerAaron
August 17, 2009 at 10:00 am
Well Al, Kampman had help in coverage on the play in question. Unfortunatley, it was in the form of Brady Poppinga. ;)
August 17, 2009 at 10:21 am
Al, how much do we have to be "helping" one of our best players? Who's going to help Poppinga? And Montgomery? And Hawk?
Wouldn't it be more sensible we're going to be having to help our weaker players rather than one of our strongest?
August 17, 2009 at 11:12 am
CD - We are helping one of our weaker players. Kampman is likely the worst of all of our linebackers in coverage. That's why he needs help. This is a team sport, teams work together to minimize the weaknesses of their members while maximizing each other's strengths. As far as having Kampman drop back into coverage, it's like I said earlier: without the possibility of dropping Kampman back, the defense becomes predictable and the advantage of the 3-4 is eliminated. It's a tradeoff. Kampman has to do something he's not very good at in order to make the defense as a whole better, and while Kampman's in coverage, he needs help.
August 17, 2009 at 11:45 am
Jayme, that was dizzying logic, but, boiled down, if Aaron Kampman is a liability, we have a problem. We have enough liabilities on the field as it is.
August 17, 2009 at 01:11 pm
CD- I doubt it's as bad as you think. It's cost/benefit logic: The cost incurred by having Kampman drop back into coverage and giving him help occasionally is far less than the benefit of having a great degree of unpredictability and having pressure on the quarterback regularly.
August 17, 2009 at 01:16 pm
Wow. What game did you people saw? The first game of the new defense and the opponent doesn't score, and suddenly there're liabilities everywhere??? I get it was the Browns, and they did drove downfield and missed a FG and a redzone opportunity, but come on.
August 17, 2009 at 01:18 pm
Oh, I totally forgot! You hate Kampman...
PackerAaron
August 17, 2009 at 02:03 pm
You're right. I hate Kampman. (rollseyes) It's called 'improvement' If you're not improving you're in decline. Evey player in the NFL has something he could improve on. Every. Single. One.
August 17, 2009 at 06:54 pm
It did feel good to watch our second team defense blank the Browns right?
August 17, 2009 at 10:51 pm
"I’ll gladly take Kampman giving up a first down on 3rd and 5 for regular pressure all game long."
That is the key. The trade-off is well worth it, and its not like we saw Kampman drop into coverage 10 times and give up 10 1st downs. We're talking about one play, in the first preseason game w/ the new scheme. That's what the preseason is for.
August 18, 2009 at 03:59 am
One play & he's suddenly in decline and a liability.
______
AR only completed 5 of 10. (50%) That isn't going to cut it in the WC. .... Obviously he's in decline.
______
A little perspective.