Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ    Contact Us  Your donations are greatly appreciated! Donate  Chat Room

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:29 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:06 pm
Posts: 530
Location: Spokane
I have seen some rumblings about moving Kam to LB and moving Jeron Johnson to his safety position. Or just having him play closer to the LOS with an extra DB in the lineup. Are these rumblings based on anything PC or JS have said or are they just armchair coaches and GMs spouting their opinions?

_________________
Go Hawks!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:37 am 
NET Starter
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:15 am
Posts: 333
There were rumblings last year. When JS said he wanted Mark Barron in the draft.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:38 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:48 pm
Posts: 2281
dumb idea. I still don't get the love for Jeron Johnson. He's a decent player, but not anything spectacular. Chancellor is fine where he's at.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:39 am 
* NET Staff Alumni *
* NET Staff Alumni *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
Posts: 12415
Location: Anchorage, AK
Maybe we can just have one huge "Which players should we try in new positions" thread?

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:42 am 
NET Starter
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:14 pm
Posts: 460
jlwaters1 wrote:
dumb idea. I still don't get the love for Jeron Johnson. He's a decent player, but not anything spectacular. Chancellor is fine where he's at.


Winston Guy.

_________________
Week 1 of the preseason vs. The Tennessee Titans, I said the Seahawks were winning the superbowl...

"Oh and by the way, Go Hawks!!!" Russel Wilson


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:55 am 
* NET Baller *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:02 am
Posts: 17529
Location: Graham, WA
No, just no, where the hell are the rumblings? I'm not seeing it coming out of the Seahawks camp, I do see some stupid ideas from fans about it though.

_________________
Image
3elieve


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:03 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am
Posts: 2748
Changing a player's starting position is reserved for ineffective players at their current position. Prime examples being Red Bryant as a DT and JR Sweezy at DT.

Not a discussion for all-pros or pro-bowl caliber players, unless you play too much Madden or FF.

_________________
Give me some damn skittles...


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:04 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 7:56 pm
Posts: 1745
Naw, move a player to where you have a hole in the defense you just create another hole in the secondary. Just pick an outside LB with some coverage ability and keep Kam where he has played well.

_________________
NFL, all your Owlz are belong to us!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:07 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:42 am
Posts: 748
Location: New Jersey
not happening...ever

_________________
***In Carroll We Trust***


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:07 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Online

Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 2:46 pm
Posts: 1432
It hasn't been talked about this year. JS mentioned something about it last year had they drafted Mark Barron. But he also said that had they drafted Barron, Barron, Kam and ET would still all see the field at the same time in the secondary. So even then, they didn't want to move Kam to OLB full time.

Kam is a Safety.

_________________
SUPERBOWL!!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:11 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:14 am
Posts: 2237
Not Madden.

_________________
The artist formerly known as T-Sizzle


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:16 am 
* Gangnameister *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 11106
Location: PoCompton, BC Canada
I could see it being done situationally to take advantage of a match-up or to counter a mis-match, but likely not as a full time position change. We're lucky to have two pretty talented depth players in Jeron Johnson and Winston Guy that could allow them to be a little creative with how they deploy Earl and Kam (Earl looked pretty good in the slot at the Pro Bowl with that pick).

No it's not Madden but in case you haven't noticed, being a slave to "Conventional Wisdom" is kinda frowned upon around here.

_________________
I <3 Nunchucks


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:36 am 
* Master Chief *
* Master Chief *
User avatar
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:19 am
Posts: 7408
Location: CVN-68
We should move Clint Gresham to WR.

_________________
@SeahawkGreg

Image

"I will be thrilled with 10 wins.... If we win 14 games, I will tattoo my nuts green and blue!" --13thMan


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:38 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 7723
Location: Surrounded by Elway, Tebow, and Manning jerseys
FlyingGreg wrote:
We should move Clint Gresham to WR.


Makes sense. How about Matt Flynn to LEO?

_________________
Image

Super Bowl XLVIII Champions


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:43 am 
NET Rookie
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:55 pm
Posts: 128
Location: The Wall
volsunghawk wrote:
FlyingGreg wrote:
We should move Clint Gresham to WR.


Makes sense. How about Matt Flynn to LEO?


I think his sizable forehead could potentially lead to more batted down passes than JJ Watt.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:11 am 
* Master Chief *
* Master Chief *
User avatar
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:19 am
Posts: 7408
Location: CVN-68
volsunghawk wrote:
FlyingGreg wrote:
We should move Clint Gresham to WR.


Makes sense. How about Matt Flynn to LEO?


Only on passing downs.

_________________
@SeahawkGreg

Image

"I will be thrilled with 10 wins.... If we win 14 games, I will tattoo my nuts green and blue!" --13thMan


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:16 am 
* NET Baller *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:02 am
Posts: 17529
Location: Graham, WA
Haushka should totally be moved to RT

_________________
Image
3elieve


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:18 am 
NET Pro Bowler
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:50 am
Posts: 11177
Location: Antioch, CA
CANHawk wrote:
I could see it being done situationally to take advantage of a match-up or to counter a mis-match, but likely not as a full time position change. We're lucky to have two pretty talented depth players in Jeron Johnson and Winston Guy that could allow them to be a little creative with how they deploy Earl and Kam (Earl looked pretty good in the slot at the Pro Bowl with that pick).

No it's not Madden but in case you haven't noticed, being a slave to "Conventional Wisdom" is kinda frowned upon around here.


This. Kam could not be an every down LB in the NFL, but I could see him playing there on occasion if the situation called for it.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:22 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:26 am
Posts: 1522
We should just end all these Fitzgerald fantasies and move Sherman to WR. Its been 2 years and he hasnt made the pro bowl at CB so i think its time we try something new with him!

_________________
----


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:24 am 
* NET Eeyore *
User avatar
Online

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:47 am
Posts: 10539
Location: Pasco, WA
I would not be okay with moving him there permanently, but on occasion on passing downs to help him get in position to cover the TE I might be okay with it.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:32 am 
NET Rookie
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:55 pm
Posts: 128
Location: The Wall
ensett wrote:
We should just end all these Fitzgerald fantasies and move Sherman to WR. Its been 2 years and he hasnt made the pro bowl at CB so i think its time we try something new with him!


While we're at it, we might as well move John Moffitt to his natural position.

Which is a Hooter's waitress.

Image

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:43 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:12 pm
Posts: 1401
Location: Seattle (From Spokane)
oldhawkfan wrote:
just armchair coaches and GMs spouting their opinions

As far as I've heard, it's just this^

_________________
Tru2RedNGold25 wrote:
Us as Niners fan have every right to rep Niners all day everyday when we have the hardware to back it up do can u guys say that???


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:53 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 1304
We need a giant banner somewhere at the top of the site with the quote from Schneider saying they try not to move pro bowl players to another position so this stuff doesn't come up.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:03 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:22 pm
Posts: 3870
Location: Tri Cities, WA
i could see it situationally as well.. but hopefully we replace Hill with a more than capable pass covering LB...

_________________
World Champs - Sounds good don't it


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:55 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:00 pm
Posts: 1141
sainthawk29 wrote:
There were rumblings last year. When JS said he wanted Mark Barron in the draft.


Yup apples and oranges though, Barron was such a talented player that had he fallen to the Hawks they would take him just because they had him rated so highly. I think that had more to do with the team seeing Barron as a future All-Pro at safety then it did as any dissatisfaction with Chancellor.

Chancellor could be better against the pass but the Seahawk's scheme does a lot of things which allow him to play underneath and in the box (which are his strengths).


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:14 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am
Posts: 2748
amill87 wrote:
We need a giant banner somewhere at the top of the site with the quote from Schneider saying they try not to move pro bowl players to another position so this stuff doesn't come up.


I must have posted that quote ten times in the past week.

_________________
Give me some damn skittles...


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:30 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:00 pm
Posts: 1363
While it's true that JS admitted He had Barron and Keuchly as the only D players above Irvin, it's not necessarily true that he WOULD have taken him, but that is what was implied. Even so, I don't understand how you guys act like you know everything in your infinite wisdom. Is it likely to happen? NO. Is it possible? Definately, given JS's remarks.

_________________
Image

"We all we got, we all we need"


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:37 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:04 am
Posts: 599
Basis4day wrote:
Changing a player's starting position is reserved for ineffective players at their current position. Prime examples being Red Bryant as a DT and JR Sweezy at DT.

Not a discussion for all-pros or pro-bowl caliber players, unless you play too much Madden or FF.



Ehhh....UNGER can play at guard and center if needed!

Percy Harvin could start at RB if needed actually...


Would say in this NFL if you can get another DB on the field to cover a "move TE". Or jam him of the line in obvious passing downs? Why not?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:39 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:04 am
Posts: 599
In fact...you can have roster flexibility and by having flexible players as far as multiple positions? Salary cap and depth!! Get game time reps as well if possible...disguise coverages? If say why not?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:50 pm 
* NET Staff Alumni *
* NET Staff Alumni *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
Posts: 12415
Location: Anchorage, AK
zayden185 wrote:
In fact...you can have roster flexibility and by having flexible players as far as multiple positions? Salary cap and depth!! Get game time reps as well if possible...disguise coverages? If say why not?



Having players who can play other positions in a pinch is a good thing, it adds to the depth of the team, but that's a far cry from moving players out of their position to see if it will work

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:59 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am
Posts: 2748
zayden185 wrote:
Basis4day wrote:
Changing a player's starting position is reserved for ineffective players at their current position. Prime examples being Red Bryant as a DT and JR Sweezy at DT.

Not a discussion for all-pros or pro-bowl caliber players, unless you play too much Madden or FF.



Ehhh....UNGER can play at guard and center if needed!

Percy Harvin could start at RB if needed actually...


Would say in this NFL if you can get another DB on the field to cover a "move TE". Or jam him of the line in obvious passing downs? Why not?


Unger IS our starting center (And an all-pro), and that is where he is needed and serves our team best. He ain't moving either. Carpenter, Moffit, Sweezy and McQuisten are all going to take over at guard before you would move Unger out of desperation. You're scenario is injury based, not which player should start at "X" position 1st string.

This FO has done a pretty bang up job finding LBs, no need to switch a pro-bowler like Kam when you know how to draft LBs.

Seriously, just leave our best players at their native positions.

_________________
Give me some damn skittles...


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:01 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:25 pm
Posts: 613
Kam got his first defensive snaps basically playing LB when we ran the bandit package in passing situations. The bandit was a 6-7 DB formation designed to create a variety of blitzing opportunities while leaving fewer liabilities in coverage than the usual blitz. We didn't have the DB depth or the offense to make this a staple back then, but it still offered a role which Kam played well enough to become the starting SS. If our pass rush still isn't there, Kam COULD play a similar position if this is the route we go for addressing the issue, even if only in certain situations.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:07 pm 
* NET Staff Alumni *
* NET Staff Alumni *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
Posts: 12415
Location: Anchorage, AK
BirdsCommaAngry wrote:
Kam got his first defensive snaps basically playing LB when we ran the bandit package in passing situations. The bandit was a 6-7 DB formation designed to create a variety of blitzing opportunities while leaving fewer liabilities in coverage than the usual blitz. We didn't have the DB depth or the offense to make this a staple back then, but it still offered a role which Kam played well enough to become the starting SS. If our pass rush still isn't there, Kam COULD play a similar position if this is the route we go for addressing the issue, even if only in certain situations.


The bandit is a defense with More DBs and less LBs on the field. The defense is played differently than the standard defense would be, so Kam isn't playing LB in that defense, he's still playing Safety. Playing a Bandit defense when it's called for is NOT the same as moving a safety to LB

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:07 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:25 pm
Posts: 613
amill87 wrote:
We need a giant banner somewhere at the top of the site with the quote from Schneider saying they try not to move pro bowl players to another position so this stuff doesn't come up.


The quote you're referring to is about changing players' positions on a full-time basis.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:08 pm 
* NET Staff Alumni *
* NET Staff Alumni *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
Posts: 12415
Location: Anchorage, AK
I swear to God I'm starting to miss the QB controversy already :roll:

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:14 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am
Posts: 2748
kidhawk wrote:
I swear to God I'm starting to miss the QB controversy already :roll:


HAHAHAHA. True. I need the draft talk to heat up. But with my luck it will be about finding a CB so Browner can move to SS and Kam can switch to LB because it worked in Madden.

That reminds me. We should switch Irvin to WR. Look how well it COULD work!!!


_________________
Give me some damn skittles...


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:26 pm 
NET Rookie
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:39 am
Posts: 194
Location: big black hawk
not confident on his ability to take on o-linemen on an every down basis.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:29 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:25 pm
Posts: 613
kidhawk wrote:
The bandit is a defense with More DBs and less LBs on the field. The defense is played differently than the standard defense would be, so Kam isn't playing LB in that defense, he's still playing Safety. Playing a Bandit defense when it's called for is NOT the same as moving a safety to LB


That's just a difference in semantics. You're basically saying if a SS lines up at LB, he's still a SS, but I think of Kam as a LB when he lines up at LB. I'm happy to debate but this one seems a bit silly, now doesn't it?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:34 pm 
* NET Staff Alumni *
* NET Staff Alumni *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
Posts: 12415
Location: Anchorage, AK
BirdsCommaAngry wrote:
kidhawk wrote:
The bandit is a defense with More DBs and less LBs on the field. The defense is played differently than the standard defense would be, so Kam isn't playing LB in that defense, he's still playing Safety. Playing a Bandit defense when it's called for is NOT the same as moving a safety to LB


That's just a difference in semantics. You're basically saying if a SS lines up at LB, he's still a SS, but I think of Kam as a LB when he lines up at LB. I'm happy to debate but this one seems a bit silly, now doesn't it?


Not really, because talking Kam at LB in a standard 4-3 defense and Kam playing in the Bandit Defense are two different discussions. This thread started discussing playing Kam at the 4-3 Linebacker position. Playing 5, 6 or 7 DB's is not even close to the same thing

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:42 pm 
* NET Staff Alumni *
* NET Staff Alumni *
User avatar
Online

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
Posts: 1432
Location: Blaine, WA
skater18000 wrote:
jlwaters1 wrote:
dumb idea. I still don't get the love for Jeron Johnson. He's a decent player, but not anything spectacular. Chancellor is fine where he's at.


Winston Guy.


Guy sucked the few times we've seen him.

Kam is one of the top 4-5 safeties in the conference. You don't move him.

_________________
<A>
<IMG></A>


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:08 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:25 pm
Posts: 613
kidhawk wrote:
Not really, because talking Kam at LB in a standard 4-3 defense and Kam playing in the Bandit Defense are two different discussions. This thread started discussing playing Kam at the 4-3 Linebacker position. Playing 5, 6 or 7 DB's is not even close to the same thing


That's just a difference in interpretation. The OP put up a very open thread title and asked specifically if there was any validity to whatever speculation he heard about moving Kam around with him going to WLB and JJ going to SS in our base set or Kam taking up a role closer to the LoS with a extra DB coming in. The latter is the role Kam filled during his days as a situational guy in the bandit package and while the overall formation is different and the personnel he's playing with have largely changed, the hypothetical "Kam at LB" role is more than similar enough to be a part of this topic (and it should be one of the focal points of any conversations about that kind of move IMO).

However, if you're going to get on me for stepping outside what you interpret to be the confides of the discussion, then why don't you take that very literal interpretation toward the guys who are poking fun at this thread and the threads like it as well? They aren't talking about Kam at LB in a standard 4-3 defense when they say their version of "*Sigh* it must be the off-season..."


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:23 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:25 pm
Posts: 613
McGruff wrote:
Guy sucked the few times we've seen him.

Kam is one of the top 4-5 safeties in the conference. You don't move him.


Revis is the top CB in his conference and even he gets moved inside to cover guys like Welker. If we don't move a versatile player around, it's for a better reason than "You just don't do it".


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:24 pm 
* Gangnameister *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 11106
Location: PoCompton, BC Canada
I don't understand why we can't have sub packages that include rotating in a different SS. We rotate in different DE's and DT's depending on the situation to take advantage of their diverse skillsets, so why not do the same for the secondary? Kam is a BEAST in run support, but has shown a little bit of a chink in the armor in pass coverage. Red Bryant and Allan Branch are beasts in run support but aren't so hot at rushing the passer so we rotate them out on passing downs in favor of Bruce Irvin and Jason Jones who can get the job done better. Nothing wrong with putting the best skillsets on the field in the best positions to take advantage of them in a given scenario.

If we're going to run that press man with the 2 safties playing deep zones over the top, what's wrong with rotating in a SS who's a little better in coverage like Jeron Johnson and having Kam move down to nickel LB with Bobby Wagner? Hell, I thought that was why we drafted Mark Legree; to have two ball hawks over the top in passing situations. Kam's not quite a big enough thumper to go down and play Will on every play. I think a lot of what makes Kam "Bam Bam Kam" would be lost if he's just a regular every down linebacker taking on fullbacks and guards every play, but if he were to roll down and play Will or something in obvious passing situations, he'd be a big improvement in coverage over a standard LB and Jeron Johnson (or a FA or a rookie or whoever) could be an improvement over Kam in that deep zone.

I see nothing wrong with moving people around situationally to take advantage of their skillsets given the scenario. ...but I also see nothing wrong with leaving Kam exactly where he is because he's not exactly a liability back there either.

_________________
I <3 Nunchucks


Last edited by CANHawk on Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:24 pm 
* NET Staff Alumni *
* NET Staff Alumni *
User avatar
Online

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
Posts: 1432
Location: Blaine, WA
BirdsCommaAngry wrote:
kidhawk wrote:
Not really, because talking Kam at LB in a standard 4-3 defense and Kam playing in the Bandit Defense are two different discussions. This thread started discussing playing Kam at the 4-3 Linebacker position. Playing 5, 6 or 7 DB's is not even close to the same thing


That's just a difference in interpretation. The OP put up a very open thread title and asked specifically if there was any validity to whatever speculation he heard about moving Kam around with him going to WLB and JJ going to SS in our base set or Kam taking up a role closer to the LoS with a extra DB coming in. The latter is the role Kam filled during his days as a situational guy in the bandit package and while the overall formation is different and the personnel he's playing with have largely changed, the hypothetical "Kam at LB" role is more than similar enough to be a part of this topic (and it should be one of the focal points of any conversations about that kind of move IMO).

However, if you're going to get on me for stepping outside what you interpret to be the confides of the discussion, then why don't you take that very literal interpretation toward the guys who are poking fun at this thread and the threads like it as well? They aren't talking about Kam at LB in a standard 4-3 defense when they say their version of "*Sigh* it must be the off-season..."


Kid is right and you are wrong. The Bandit is a very specific package used for very specific purposes, and the role Kam played within it has little in common with a tradition 4-3 WSLB role.

Bottom line is that Kam went to the pro bowl as a SS, was an alternate this year in a season in which he played injured, and while he can and will be used situationally in bandit tpe packages, the thought of using as a regular linebacker is fan fabricated and ludicrous.

_________________
<A>
<IMG></A>


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:26 pm 
* NET Staff Alumni *
* NET Staff Alumni *
User avatar
Online

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
Posts: 1432
Location: Blaine, WA
BirdsCommaAngry wrote:
McGruff wrote:
Guy sucked the few times we've seen him.

Kam is one of the top 4-5 safeties in the conference. You don't move him.


Revis is the top CB in his conference and even he gets moved inside to cover guys like Welker. If we don't move a versatile player around, it's for a better reason than "You just don't do it".


Moving a corner inside is significantly less radical than switching from the back safety to linebacker . . . Sure, in situational packages Kam can and does play an in the box role . . . But that should and will continue to be the exception.

_________________
<A>
<IMG></A>


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:28 pm 
* NET Staff Alumni *
* NET Staff Alumni *
User avatar
Online

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
Posts: 1432
Location: Blaine, WA
We do move Kam and others around situationally. That's not the question being asked, though, and if it is it is a dumb question considering we already do it.

_________________
<A>
<IMG></A>


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:36 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am
Posts: 2748
BirdsCommaAngry wrote:
kidhawk wrote:
Not really, because talking Kam at LB in a standard 4-3 defense and Kam playing in the Bandit Defense are two different discussions. This thread started discussing playing Kam at the 4-3 Linebacker position. Playing 5, 6 or 7 DB's is not even close to the same thing


That's just a difference in interpretation. The OP put up a very open thread title and asked specifically if there was any validity to whatever speculation he heard about moving Kam around with him going to WLB and JJ going to SS in our base set or Kam taking up a role closer to the LoS with a extra DB coming in. The latter is the role Kam filled during his days as a situational guy in the bandit package and while the overall formation is different and the personnel he's playing with have largely changed, the hypothetical "Kam at LB" role is more than similar enough to be a part of this topic (and it should be one of the focal points of any conversations about that kind of move IMO).

However, if you're going to get on me for stepping outside what you interpret to be the confides of the discussion, then why don't you take that very literal interpretation toward the guys who are poking fun at this thread and the threads like it as well? They aren't talking about Kam at LB in a standard 4-3 defense when they say their version of "*Sigh* it must be the off-season..."


If Kam is already moving to what you call a situational LB, then there isn't really a discussion to be had as to whether Kam should be moved to a situational LB because he already is one by your own definition.

The main discussion, as i see it here, is the annual discussion amongst Seahawks fans about switching Kam to a full time LB in our base 4-3 defense.

It didn't matter his first year because he wasn't a starter in our base 4-3. He wasn't established yet.

His second year it was intriguing but he ended up playing at a pro-bowl level, at SS. To me, that's the end of the debate. It's hard enough getting players to play their native positions at a pro-bowl level and makes absolutely no sense to switch a person's native position in that scenario. If you brought in a SS that was that much better, like an all-pro SS, you might be able to convince me. But bringing in say Revis (not going to happen) to be a CB does not convince me to move Browner to SS and Kam to LB, it convinces me to explore your options with Browner alone. These guys aren't rookies or slowing down yet. I don't need to explore my options or wait for them to develop at a new position when they are already playing at a high level and continuing to develop at a high level at their native position.

_________________
Give me some damn skittles...


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:41 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:40 pm
Posts: 1840
Players change positions all the time. mRob was a QB, Sweezy and the list goes on. look at guys like Tebow...maybe not the best example. Last winter Kam worked out at Linebacker.
Players as they get older tend to get bigger, and Kam is already linebacker size. He was out of position at times this year and is the slowest DB we start already. As the game changes so do roles and responsibilities

Don't discount PCs influences. He saw the great Ronnie Lott moved from corner to SS at year 3. he was all-pro at both. In reality Lott was playing a combination SS/LB based on the play. I think he would like to do a similar role with Kam.

My gut feeing is with the run game as discounted as it is we are seeing a lot of non classical defenses. 3-4 teams have already implied that they are looking at the pistol next year. When change occurs the defenses change accordingly.

I see Pete & Co. going to variations off the Bandit that are similar to the 46 , but not like that used by the Jets, to combat the pistol. Strong edge pressure and quick LB linebackers filling throwing lanes or running lanes

Look at some of the old bill Wash videos and see how he played the DBs. People I suspect when they think of the old Bill Walsh teams think of Offense first. When PC was there the D was ranked 1-3 he is a far better defensive coach than I think many realize and give the accolades his assistants. Make no mistake PC is a guru, especially with defensive backs.

Defenses change often every 2 or 3 plays the idea of a base defense is really just the basic package


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:50 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am
Posts: 2748
Happypuppy wrote:
Players change positions all the time. mRob was a QB, Sweezy and the list goes on. look at guys like Tebow...maybe not the best example. Last winter Kam worked out at Linebacker.
Players as they get older tend to get bigger, and Kam is already linebacker size. He was out of position at times this year and is the slowest DB we start already. As the game changes so do roles and responsibilities

Don't discount PCs influences. He saw the great Ronnie Lott moved from corner to SS at year 3. he was all-pro at both. In reality Lott was playing a combination SS/LB based on the play. I think he would like to do a similar role with Kam.

My gut feeing is with the run game as discounted as it is we are seeing a lot of non classical defenses. 3-4 teams have already implied that they are looking at the pistol next year. When change occurs the defenses change accordingly.

I see Pete & Co. going to variations off the Bandit that are similar to the 46 , but not like that used by the Jets, to combat the pistol. Strong edge pressure and quick LB linebackers filling throwing lanes or running lanes

Look at some of the old bill Wash videos and see how he played the DBs. People I suspect when they think of the old Bill Walsh teams think of Offense first. When PC was there the D was ranked 1-3 he is a far better defensive coach than I think many realize and give the accolades his assistants. Make no mistake PC is a guru, especially with defensive backs.

Defenses change often every 2 or 3 plays the idea of a base defense is really just the basic package


Stick with Lott for your example. That is a much sounder argument. MRob was never a pro bowl QB (but he thrived at FB). Sweezy was not going to play in the NFL as on D, but hes a starter on Oline.

Lott. Now that is an intriguing argument. As he was an all-pro corner before becoming a all-pro safety. Without dismissing any of this, Lott was one of the best football players to play the game and i think hes the exception rather than the rule. Not to mention he played in the pre salary cap/ free agency era and teams with deep pockets had no problem keeping their top talent.

If we could bring in any player we wanted with Paul Allen's money, by all means my beliefs go out the window.

_________________
Give me some damn skittles...


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kam at LB?
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:02 pm 
* Gangnameister *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 11106
Location: PoCompton, BC Canada
Happypuppy wrote:
Players change positions all the time. mRob was a QB, Sweezy and the list goes on. look at guys like Tebow...maybe not the best example. Last winter Kam worked out at Linebacker.
Players as they get older tend to get bigger, and Kam is already linebacker size. He was out of position at times this year and is the slowest DB we start already. As the game changes so do roles and responsibilities

Don't discount PCs influences. He saw the great Ronnie Lott moved from corner to SS at year 3. he was all-pro at both. In reality Lott was playing a combination SS/LB based on the play. I think he would like to do a similar role with Kam.

My gut feeing is with the run game as discounted as it is we are seeing a lot of non classical defenses. 3-4 teams have already implied that they are looking at the pistol next year. When change occurs the defenses change accordingly.

I see Pete & Co. going to variations off the Bandit that are similar to the 46 , but not like that used by the Jets, to combat the pistol. Strong edge pressure and quick LB linebackers filling throwing lanes or running lanes

Look at some of the old bill Wash videos and see how he played the DBs. People I suspect when they think of the old Bill Walsh teams think of Offense first. When PC was there the D was ranked 1-3 he is a far better defensive coach than I think many realize and give the accolades his assistants. Make no mistake PC is a guru, especially with defensive backs.

Defenses change often every 2 or 3 plays the idea of a base defense is really just the basic package


Corner to safety is a very natural and common progression. It greatly extended the careers and productive years of Rod Woodson and Ronde Barber (and those are just two guys off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more) and they have been pro bowlers at both positions. Lol, Champ Bailey might play another 15 years if he moves to safety!

I could potentially see Kam moving to a full time LB as he gets older and loses a step speed wise (not that he's exactly blazing fast to start with), but I don't think it's necessary now. If a blue chip, all world, possible HOF candidate SS falls to us in the draft then it's absolutely an avenue we could explore, but I don't see SS as a need right now.

And you're right on the money, Pete is going to be at the head of the pack when it comes to combating the pistol and the spread option offenses. He's a total mad scientist.

_________________
I <3 Nunchucks


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]



 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Seahawks.NET is an independent fan site and not associated with the Seattle Seahawks or the NFL (National Football League).
All content within this Seahawks fan page is provided by, and for, Seattle Seahawks fans. Copyright © Seahawks.NET.