Or is it the other way around?

Ted made the decision to keep the same personnel on defense despite a change in scheme. Who looks like they fit and who looks like they don't? Kampman seems to be the obvious person who is miscast while Woodson can look good in any scheme. Other thoughts?

I think Tramon Williams looks good so far. Kampman is the odd man out. I would say the same about Hawk and Barnett but Im just wondering if they are just flat out overrated.

Jolly seems to be flourishing. Maybe its because of the contract year though. Never know with guys like that.

I think Kampman looks uncomfortable, but is fine. His talent still jumps out. 12 games to go.

Brandon Chillar looks the part and Barnett looks lost..

I am willing to roll with AK, but if someone offered a decent player for him, I'd move him. He is miscast, but still okay. The biggest issue for me is where his head is. If AK is encouraged and upbeat about the transition, I keep him. OIf not, look to move him.

Barnett is just a guy.

I want to see Bishop and Chillar on the field more.

Trade Wells...if anybody wants him.

I agree AK is miscast. However, next year is his contract year, and I don't believe for a second the Packers will declare him a franchise player- unless the Packers mean to then trade him to another team. I think Hawk and Barnett are both being exposed in this scheme. Neither seems to be able to rush adequately, and most of their tackles take place a few yards down the field. As far as trading Wells, I disagree. The OL is thin, and the loss of Wells would only make it thinner.

looking at stats, kampman jumps out the most obviously with his 1 sack compared to the past 3-4 years. for total tackles, the mike LBs have 26 tackles (chillar), 23 (hawk) and 22 (barnett). i cant think of any times where those tackles were TFLs so i am very dissapointed with that. the dline is doing a decent job of eating up blockers and still making plays. if i were the packers, i'd try to move kampman before the trade deadline. i would not resign barnett and i'd work in bishop more and more because this d makes sense to him and he was actually making plays in preseason. CM3 is doing pretty good so far, his stats dont show it yet though. after the packers use a 1st round pick on an OT (crossing fingers), they should grab a OLB to take kamp's spot if one is there. the packers also gotta start thinking about getting a guy to replace harris and eventually woodson.

they gotta send kampman more on blitzes, he is worthless in coverage. i dont care if the opposition knows he is coming, they knew he was coming in the 4-3 and he was getting 10-12 sacks a year, its just a waste not using him to get at the qb. maybe the qb wont have 7.34 seconds to pass then.

Let's see the Packer have what 5 total sacks: C Jenkins-2, KAmpman-1, Matthews-1 and Chillar-1-that it? Scheme change too the 3-4 surely hasn't neem all that it was advertised as-maybe> Yes it maybe take sometim for same too develop into what fans expect. But I dare say after 4 games employing the ole 4-3 (Jenkins, Pickett, Radi and Kampman with Hawks, Barnett and Chillar or Matthews at LBRs spot-I would expect better results. The PAcker talent best fits the 4-3 scheme-in my opinion. Question, was the scheme change all hype too buy time or will it be the PAckers savior-time awasting! Time for a reality check? Go Packers....

PS Better give me atleast 10 wins or in my opinion, it may be time for more changes. While all not lost, all not making me a happy camper either. Getta done TT!

Kampman seems to be the guy most put out by the new scheme -- most of the rest of the staff is getting along fairly well when you consider that the Packers have only played four games in 3-4 and the convention wisdom is that it takes a year to install it.

I'd like to see a trade of Kampman to a team that can use him to a player better suited for the 3-4. That is a very tall order, however.

Trade Kampman! Question: If the Packers continue to faulter and MM is released (maybe even TT), would Kampman loss be an asset for the new team leadership? If the 3-4 scheme fails, would Kampman help reestablish a decent 4-3 front? Sorry, Kampman not the problem but maybe part of the solution down the road?

It's not as if the 3-4 is some radically experimental new defensive technique -- it's a proven defensive look and the Packers have committed to it by drafting players for it, so in my mind it makes sense to trade players, even excellent ones like Kampman, who are not well suited for the 3-4 for those who are.

Fans seemed to really like the 3-4 in the pre-season and were going gaga. Pre-season is named for what it is.

The 3-4 will be fine.

I've posted (and, of course gotten slammed) for suggesting an AK trade before we get nada for him in FA. The player/pick(s) plus cap money would really help the team shape up in the 3-4 better. Enough on that.

Pleasant surprise -- especially given the vast number of pre-season 'nay-sayers' has been the play of Al Harris. He's probably surprised many here in adjusting to zone. With Bigby out, it's been hard to evaluate cover schemes as the same 4 DBs haven't been on the field for a game yet let alone develop any continuity playing together.

...and October 20th is the trading deadline, isn't it? So, we may end up keeping our square pegs anyway.

Harris played in an aggressive zone scheme (based on blitzing to apply pressure on the QB) in Philadelphia for 5 seasons and seemed to do fairly well behind starters Troy Vincent and Bobby Taylor during his time there. In fact, Tramon Williams reminds me a lot of Al Harris before he came to Green Bay. They even had a similar start to their careers with a year on the practice squad to develop more before becoming nicklebacks, spot-starters and regular contributors. I didn't have any concern about Harris' ability to play well in this defense, and I hope that the Packers aren't stupid enough to trade Tramon Williams away before he becomes a starter himself.