Wednesday, September 30, 2009

WTF

The Wisconsin Tourism Federation becomes the Federation of Wisconsin Tourism.

Too bad. I sort of like the slogan, "WTF: Visit Wisconsin."

Polite nod to Prof. Turley.

.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Packer Transplants/Cheesehead Nation Live Blog. Tonight. 7 Central.

Monday, September 28, 2009

Too Much Credit to Capers

Silverstein writes:

All Capers has to do after crafting a defense that ranks tied for first in the NFL with nine takeaways is come up with a plan to stop Favre and the Vikings

I'm all for Capers and everything but let's not pretend that it was anything special about his defensive schemes that created the turnovers unless we are going to laud Bob Sanders for doing the exact same thing last season.

Chuck Woodson deserves more credit than Capers or Sanders.

.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Half-Shirt on "Mama's Family"

This really happened.

Here is another shameful example (embedding disabled). This time from the hit sitcom "Mama's Family."

Incidentally, Steven Hyden (my favorite AV Club writer), recently named Mama's Family "the worst sitcom of all time." Tough to argue against him.

.

Abandon the Run Already

The Packers can't constantly be placed in 3rd and long on offense, that means "abandoning the run" (at least on first down). I'm sick of the "you have to run the ball to keep the defense honest" cliche. That's like saying I have to keep beating my head against this brick wall to keep the wall honest.

The Packers just can't start every single drive with a one yard run from Grant. This is leading to too many three-and-outs and putting too much pressure on a defense that is still learning. To call back to a preseason post, Football Outsider's predicted a declining offense this year because the team would not be able to sustain its success on third down. Put another way, the team cannot consistently under perform on first and second down and expect to convert third and long.

So far, FO is correct. The Packers have to find a way (any way) to stay ahead of the sticks.

McCarthy has to use the pass to set up the run. More 4 or 5 yard passes on first down. Then on second down the Packers will have a favorable down and distance that they can run the ball or set up play action.

.

...Calling Dave Rayner

  • Poor defensive third down play again in the first half allowing the Rams to convert 3rd and 10 on two consecutive drives for two consecutive touchdowns. Much better in the second half, although the Packers defense was aided by some Rams miscues, dropped passes, poor throws, etc.
  • Where's the pressure?
  • Through three games, this season sure is taking on the feel of a "rebuilding year."
  • Nice to see Raji play, but I didn't see him make much of an impact. I was an advocate for drafting a stud offensive tackle. As of today (and I reserve the right to change my mind), I would gladly give up Raji for a Michael Oher.
  • I'm waiting to read all the blogs whining about how stupid it was for McCarthy dial up the fullback dive at the goal line. You know, like they did last season when the play didn't work we were treated to a bunch of hyperventilating rants about how stupid it was to "take the ball of the hands" of Rodgers and give it to a lowly fullback. The fact is, however, that the fullback dive is (and has been) one the Packers best short yardage plays. There have only been one or two times where it has not worked. I also liked the fake sweep twist this week. I'm not too worried because I'm sure that the play will be unsuccessful some time this season (no plays have a 100% success rate) and the whiners will come back out of the woodwork in full force.
  • Two other plays that I liked: (1) the shotgun pitch sweep, and the (2) the end around to Driver. The first play was about the only successful running play in the first half and McCarthy never went back to it. The second was just a great call at the right time.

.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Thursday, September 24, 2009

The Time Has Come to Break the Silence.

If I could talk about something serious for a second. Something awful happened in the 1980s. Nobody will talk about it. In fact it was so terrible that to cope we have repressed all memories of it. We have been, and remain, in a state of cultural amnesia.

For a time in the 1980s it was considered "cool" for a heterosexual male to wear a half-shirt. This really happened. And, nobody stopped to ask: "Hey, does this make me look, you know, super comically gay (not that there is anything wrong with that)?"

We have reached the point where people laugh about parachute pants and tight-rolled acid-washed jeans, but it is still "too soon" to talk about dudes in half-shirts.

It is time to break the silence.

I know its painful to think about, but we have to start talking if we are to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again.

.

The Great Samurai Controversy

Everyone is a-twitter (see what I did there?) about the Nick Barnett's samurai celebration two plays after he allowed a first down by missing a tackle. Carriveau says that Barnett should "act like he's been there before." Nagler says that everyone should just "shut the hell up." I sympathize more with Carriveau's position over's Nagler's somewhat pious "reminder" that Barnett is "not your kid."

But this is completely missing the trees from the forest fire: the Samurai celebration sucks at all times.

It is mime. Mime sucks. The only time mime was cool was when Tim Harris busted out his six shooters. The gravedigger was merely tolerable. That's it. Close the book.

We need to draw the line somewhere or else dull players who think they are exponentially more clever than they are will continue to come out with more and more contrived miming celebrations. Do we really need the light-saber mime, the nun chuck mime, or the running around with scissors mime?

It's stupid and it makes me cringe. And it must stop. If not now: when?

ADDENDUM: CD Angeli has it about right.

.


Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Monday, September 21, 2009

Adventures in Photoshop

Check out this picture from NFL.com.

Is it just me or is something missing?

.

Is Flynn a Better Prospect Than Rodgers?

This is insane:

Some evaluators are even convinced backup Matt Flynn has a brighter future than Rodgers, having shown great ball placement in the preseason and much better escapability, which is more valued behind a line playing as poorly as the Packers’. If Rodgers should go down, as he has had a tendency to do early in his career, it could be a blessing in disguise.

I have always been a huge fan of Flynn but give me a break. I would love to know who these "evaluators" are. This has got to be some kind of practical joke.

Wow. Just wow.

.

McCarthy Should Have Gone for the Touchdown First.

I haven't heard a lot of chatter about McCarthy's decision to take the field goal on second down at the Bengal's 27. Which is surprising, because there is no doubt that McCarthy made the wrong decision. McCarthy should have gone for the touchdown first.

There are two reasons. First, by scoring the touchdown the Packers would have at least preserved the possibility of winning the game in regulation by scoring another touchdown. Think back to the game against Chicago. With the receiving corps that the Packers have it is not that far-fetched to imagine the Packers winning the game in the final seconds. But by kicking the field goal first, McCarthy took the win off the table and the best the Packers could hope for was to send the game to overtime.

Second, you should save the field goal for last because you can kick a field goal from various places, but you have to get to the endzone to score a touchdown. Put another way, the Packers needed a touchdown and a field goal. Obvious. But the Packers did not need a touchdown and a 45 yard field goal. But once they kicked the field goal, that's what they were locked in to.

Think about it this way, once the Packers kicked the field goal, they had to drive 57 yards just to tie the game with a touchdown. But had they first scored a touchdown, they would have only needed to drive 24 yards to try a 50 yard field goal, 19 yards to set up a 55 yard field goal, or 14 yards to try winging a 60 yard field goal. Add in the 27 yard to the endzone and the Packers would have needed a total of 51 yards for a touchdown and 50 yard field goal try, 46 yards for a touchdown and a 55 yard field goal try, or 41 yards for a touchdown and a 60 yard field goal try. But the Packers didn't even have the option of trying a long field goal because McCarthy locked the team into a 45 yard field goal try, and locked the team into needing to drive 57 yards for the tie.

Did it ultimately matter? It's tough to say. The most improbable part of the comeback effort was the onsides kick, which was successful. But think about this: after the Packers got the ball back it took 27 seconds to get to the Bengals' 35 yard line and spike the ball into the turf.

In an alternate universe could the Packers have scored a touchdown and recovered the onsides kick with 28 seconds remaining allowing the Packers to attempt a 52 yard field goal? We will never know. But it was at least possible. McCarthy's job is to preserve these possibilities. His job is to put his team in the best position to win. He failed yesterday.

.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Cheer up, Sleepy Gene.

Today's game was bad. Really bad. But cheer up. Step away from the ledge. Things will get better. In fact, things can only get better. Here are some silver linings to help you through next week.

The offense is playing poorly in part due to a leaky offensive line, that just got a little worse with Clifton rehabbing his ankle. That's the bad news.

But that's only half of the story. The other half is that Packers' best offensive players---Rodgers, Jennings and Driver---are playing well below their ability. And that (believe it or not) is the good news. The reason this is good news is that Rodgers, Jennings, and Driver are all very good players. I guarantee that these players will bounce back, and when they do the Packers offense will be markedly improved.

I expect the offensive line to continue to struggle, but the Packers will be able to mask some of the problems by bringing the offense back towards the line of scrimmage (this is called the "West Coast Offense"). I doubt we will see the same explosive offense that we saw in the preseason, but this offense will be able to move the ball and put up points. So don't despair.

The defense is a work in progress. There will be some ups and downs. This was expected all along. As I said two weeks ago: "don't throw up your hands in disgust if the defense enters the season shaky. There will be a learning curve. Let's give it some time."

If none of this cheered you up, try this:






...As Bob Sanders Smirks.

  • This defense has some work to do. A lot. I have faith that it will get done but, no, Rome was actually not built in a day after all. This defensive performance could have held its own with any of the absolute worst performances under Bob Sanders, bar none.
  • This defense was terrible against the run (like last season) and terrible on third down (like in the preseason).
  • Speaking of which, the pivotal play of the game was allowing the Bengals to convert a third and 34 en route to a touchdown. Unacceptable. Unacceptable in a box. Unacceptable with a fox. Unacceptable in a house. Unacceptable with a mouse. Unacceptable under Bob Sanders. Unacceptable under Dom Capers.
  • Rodgers has taken a huge step backwards. His protection was leaky but if he sees the pressure coming he has got to get rid of the ball. After sacrificing a safety last week I certainly would have hoped he would have been prepared to unload the ball this week.
  • For being hailed as one of the best wide receiver corps in the NFL, they sure have been playing like crap.
  • Kind of makes you wonder just how bad the Bears are.

Friday, September 18, 2009

A Streetcar Named Misfire

A wise man once said that "a town with money is a little like the mule with a spinning wheel. No one knows how he got it and danged if he knows how to use it."




As part of the Great Stimulus Swindle of 2009 (TM), the City of Milwaukee received $64 Million earmarked for a rail system that it doesn't need. Today the City unveiled its plans. The plan is aimed at "east side commuters" (read: carting a minuscule number of affluent condo-dwellers to their white collar jobs downtown).

How minuscule? The proposed lines provide coverage to census tracts 110, 113, 132, 141, 143, 144, 145, 152, and 153. The population of this area during the 2000 census was 14,479. Overall the downtown population has grown around 1.3 per year. So16,264 is a good estimate of population of the proposed service area. In any event, screw good estimates. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the population exploded to 20,000.

So how many of those 20,000 are commuters? Well, in the 2000 census, around 70% of residents of the 53212 zip code were over the age of 16 and of those, 62% were in the labor force. If those numbers hold true, that means there are around 8738 commuters (again, remember this is based upon an artificially high population of 20,000).

Okay, so assuming that there are 8738 commuters, how many of them are likely riders? Traditionally, less than 10% of Milwaukee commuters take public transportation. "Ah ha!" you say. "But that's because Milwaukee only has buses and nobody wants to ride some crummy old bus, but everyone will want to ride a 'streetcar' because it is a bus on rails!" you continue.

So for the sake of argument let's assume that Milwaukee matches Chicago at 25% commuter ridership. That still means that only 2184 city commuters will ride the trolley.

At $64 Million the City plans to spend $29,304 per rider. As a point of reference, the MSRP on a new Prius is $24,270. The City could buy every one of its future trolley riders a new Prius and still have $5,000 per rider left over for something frivolous like education or something.

And that's overestimating the population of the service area and the likely ridership percentage. If you use the more likely numbers, the total ridership sinks down to 708 riders. In that case the cost per rider is $90,395!

I recognize that the City got a $64 Million "windfall" from the federal government to build a rail system, but we have to do better than this.

But to take a step back, why does the City need a rail system? Rail is really nice in cities that have major traffic congestion and parking scarcity. Milwaukee doesn't have those problems. In fact, Milwaukee is ranked as the third best city in the country for commuting.

So why do we need rail? It is a "necessary investment to keep Milwaukee economically competitive with other cities that have or are building rail lines." That's right: we have to keep up with Shelbyville.

We definitely want to stay "economically competitive." How can we can possibly be economically competitive if our condo-dwellers ride buses on tires instead of buses on rails.

It's quite simple really:
  • Phase 1: Build streetcars
  • Phase 2: ?
  • Phase 3: Profit

.


Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Cutler/Griffin: A side-by-side Comparison

Cutler is just missing spectacles and an eight:





It's the Singer Not the Song

Another interesting point by Baranczyk (sub still req'd) :

Against Chicago, they had a lot of one-on-one matchups that they won that maybe last year they wouldn't have won. So I think the improved play of the defense so far comes down to coaching more than scheme. I think they have a good, experienced defensive coordinator and a lot of good assistant coaches.

Baranczyk goes on to list some examples. For example Jolly's huge interception had nothing to do with scheme, and everything about a player knowing what to anticipate and making a heads up and athletic play. Baranczyk may be on to something.

Well give the glory to the man.
Who's not afraid to come on strong.
When there's magic in the music.
It's the singer not the song.






ADDENDUM: Carriveau writes of this post that I suggest that "it's really the players that made the difference and not the defensive coordinator." That is not Baranczyk (or my position) at all. In his piece Baranczyk draws a distinction between "coaching" and "scheme." Baranczyk's opinion is that the defensive performance was more attributable to coaching over scheme. Personally, I'm not sure I'm completely on board. Coaching and scheme seem so intertwined that it is difficult for me to separate the two. Nevertheless, Baranczyk has some support and I think there is something to what he says.

Anyhow, I thought it was an interesting point. And it gave me a plausible excuse to queue up some cheesy 80s pop.
.

Not Another Favre Post

(1) If you have not read C.D. Angeli's post about Michael Jordan and Brett Favre believing their own hype, you should. Really good stuff.

(2) Great point by Eric Baranczyk (sub req'd) : "Here's a difference between [Rodgers] and Brett Favre. When a game wasn't going well that was when Favre threw a lot of his stupid interceptions. Rodgers doesn't try to force the ball."

.

Could This Be the Answer to Cutler's Problems?

Some out of the box thinking here. Combining the best part of Kyle Orton with Jay Cutler.

It's so crazy, it just might work. If nothing else, it would help with his multi-chin.

.

Cheesehead Nation Tonight

Packers Standing Pat at RT?

It doesn't look like the Packers are going to make a move for Tauscher this week. I think this is a mistake, not because the Packers should immediately bench Babre (they should not) but because they should have a better back-up plan in place just in case Babre just doesn't work out.

The stakes are too high. As much as I like Flynn, the Packers need Rodgers to be a legitimate contender. Rodgers blows out his knee, this is probably a wasted season. Rodgers rips his rotator cuff, hopefully he has a nice career in the broadcast booth because his football career is pretty much over, and the Packers are set back 3-5 years.

That's what's at stake.

As much as I profess to be a supporter of a "slow and steady" philosophy I don't want to see a repeat of the Derrick Frost situation. It makes sense to move now rather than wait. It doesn't mean "benching Babre" after one start. It will take Tauscher a few weeks to get back into football shape and coming off his injury the Packers will not want to rush him. Wouldn't it be great to have Tauscher getting into shape while the Packers have the Bengals and Rams on the schedule? If the Packers wait until they absolutely need a right tackle, chances are, the Packers are already too late.

Maybe Babre gets it together and looks great against the Bengals and Rams. Perfect. It's not like the Packers will be sorry that they have a solid veteran back-up. Over the course of a 16 game season, he will be needed.

Finally, there are people insisting that it will take Tauscher until 2010 to fully recover. That's possible, but the best and most recent information that we have is that Tauscher's recovery is way ahead of schedule and that he would be ready to go in early September.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Calling Mr. Tauscher . . .

  • Jay Cutler leads all NFL QBs in number of chins.
  • Favorite part of the game. Bears dial up the mind boggling fake punt at their own thirty. Camera cuts away to show a ref laughing his ass off.
  • Credit where it was due, Rodgers made the throw that counted. But he has way too many weapons to be so locked in to Jennings and Driver.
  • Speaking of Rodgers's weapons, anyone else catch the play in the first half where Finley pancaked Ogunleye and then went out and ran his route?
  • Jolly with the one-handed interception. Really?
  • Did Hawk have a pretty good game or was it just me?
  • Note to Ted Thompson: Don't be a stubborn dumbass. Give Tauscher a call.
  • Note to Emmitt Smith: Your beard is weird.

McGinn Predicts That the Packers Lose to Pittsburgh in the Superbowl.

That's a good sign. McGinn's record is well-known, and his predictions mean far more to me than any other predictions.

But I am not quite convinced. The offense looks lights out, but the defense still has a lot to prove. The starting defense forced seven turnovers but only 3 punts. This ratio is completely unsustainable. The defense's play on third down was completely unacceptable in the preseason.

A reader in the comments asked me for my prediction. Typically I don't make any specific predictions. There are too many unknowns, and too much unpredictability. Every season, there are opponents on the schedule that everyone assumes will be an automatic victory, but that turn out to be very good teams. Every year there are opponents that are supposed to be tough that turn out to be creampuffs. We probably won't know which teams are good (including the Packers) until sometime in October.

Moreover, things change quickly. The Packers have a lot riding on Rodgers 25 year old arm, and the health of that arm is riding on Clifton's 32 year old knees.

If forced to make a prediction, I'll stick with the tried and true method based upon last year's number of Pythorean wins and say the Packers go 9-7.

Monday, September 7, 2009

"Football, Football, Football," Says McCarthy.

Amusing quote from McCarthy:

at the end of the day football is football. You have to go out and play football. Our football team played very good football

Wait, what was he talking about again?

.

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Your School Children Will Be Brainwashed. Deal With It.

Over at Volohk Prof. Lindgren has a great post examining George H.W. Bush’s 1991 address to school children. Bush's speech was almost identical to Obama’s proposed address right down to the creepy request that school children write “Dear Leader” letters to Bush to pledge their assistance.

And you know what? Republicans were fine with it.

And you know what else? Democrats were pissed about it.

Go figure.

And now, conservative parents are beginning to get worried that their children are being "brainwashed" at school. Duh. What took you so long to figure that out? If you send your kids to school, they will get brainwashed. That’s just the way it is.

Speaking from my own highschool experience in the late 80s/early 90s, I know I sat through countless “lessons” on the evils of pesticides and the virtues of organic farming (among whatever other environmental issue was hot at the moment).

In the 50s children were brainwashed about sneaky homosexuals. Since the 30s school children have been brainwashed about the horrors of pot, booze, and sex. For the last eight years kids have been brainwashed to save it for marriage (unless they are gay). And on, and on.

Anyhow, parents that are concerned that their children will be brainwashed at school are on the right track. But it has little to do with Obama's address, and keeping their kids home for one day is a pointless gesture when every other day the kids will be inundated with indoctrination.

The only solution is to either keep your kids home from school every single day, or to teach your children to be skeptics, to question authority, and to have finely-tuned bullshit detectors. And then dare the school system to try to brainwash your kids, having enough faith that your children are not total flakes that will believe everything they hear at school.

.

Hey, Look What Belichick Did Today!

I like to goof on those that argue that the Packers should just copy everything that Belichick does (even though what people "think" Belichick does is not always what he actually does).

Well, now its time to turn the tables. The Patriots did something pretty bold and pretty smart today: they traded Richard Seymour for a first round pick. Why? Because: (A) they could get a first round pick for him and (B) he was likely to leave next season anyhow.

(That sort of reminds me of a particular Packer that was forced to play out of position in his final contract season and would have had some trade interest, but I digress.)

The lesson here is that almost no one should be considered "untradeable." On the Packers, I think there is one one player that is truly "untradeable" and that Aaron Rodgers. Other than that if the price is right let's make a deal.

Lombardi traded Jim Ringo, Hall of Fame center, to the Eagles as Ringo was coming off seven consecutive Pro Bowls. Today, we have Nervous Pervises who are scared of trading a back-up center.

If a Hall of Fame center is tradeable, a back-up center sure as hell is tradeable.

Here's a thought experiment: let's say the Seahawks offer three first round picks for Wells. Would you balk because it might leave the team a "little thin" in the event of an injury on the line? Hell no.

As the old joke goes, now we are just negotiating the price.

.

A.J. Feeley?

The Eagles will apparently let him go. I wouldn't mind Thompson bringing him in as the 2nd or 3rd QB. He'd be a better fit than some of the other names that I have heard tossed around like Booty and Garcia.

.

Wealthy Filmmaker To Charge $12 Per Ticket To See New Movie About the Evils of Capitalism

It's not an Onion headline.

.

Saturday, September 5, 2009

Is the Smith Cut That Surprising?

Everyone seems surprised that Anthony Smith was cut today. Silverstein, Nagler at CHTV, Andy Hayes at PackerGeeks. I guess the question that I have (and I have deleted all the preseason games from my DVR) were the Packers in the dime on all of the Packers third down meltdowns this preseason? And if so, was Smith in the game. Anyone know?

It is far more important how he played in the dime with and against starters than how he played in the base against crappy quarterbacks and third string receivers. Who cares how great he looked against guys who are looking for work tonight?

The knock against Smith has always been that he can't play within the system and takes too many chances. When the Packers are letting teams convert third and distance, you can't have a cowboy in the defensive backfield who is off doing his own thing.

Smith is a fourth year player and a little old to consider a prospect. He is who he is. If he is not a starter, he's probably not going to "develop" into a starter. And if he is not going to develop into a starter, and he can't be counted on in the dime where is his place on this roster?

.

Some Sobering Facts About the Packer Defense

There is a lot of excitement over the defense this year. Is it warranted?

Unfortunately, not based on what we have seen so far this preseason. This preseason we have witnessed a defense that has created a ton of turnovers but has been gashed for big yardage and has shown a chronic inability to hold on third down.

But the problem with last year's defense wasn't that it couldn't force turnovers. The Packers were 8th in the league in turnovers last season---and led the league in defensive touchdowns. The problem with the Packers defense last season was that it could not find a way to get itself off the field in the fourth quarter.

What evidence is there that this defense will do any better?

There is none.

In fact, the little evidence---and I do emphasize little---that we do have suggests---and a do emphasize merely suggests---that this defense might have an even hard time getting off the field than last year's squad.

Now as a preface, I must say we don't have a ton of data to draw a lot of conclusions. But from what we do have the 2009 Packer defense looks a lot more like the 2008 Packer defense than it does the 2008 Steelers defense. Looking only at the starters--the backs ups were much much worse---the defense has allowed the conversion of 8 of 15 third downs, for 53%. As a point of reference the worst teams in the league last season in third down conversion were the Colts and the Chiefs who held 47% of the time. Lasts year's Packers were tied for 10th in the league at 38%. (The Steelers led the pack at 31%).

But whats far more troubling to me is how atrocious this defense has been (in admittedly limited action) in third and distance (which I'll call third and seven or more). On those plays, the Packers allowed their opponent to convert 4 of 8 tries. A middle-of-the-road team should be able to hold on a third and seven 37% of the time. The Packers have been much worse than even middle of the road. The Packers also gave up huge plays against the Cardinals on third and long, allowing a third and nine to go for 27 yards and a third and ten to go for 27 yards.

This defense might have a hard time getting off the field this year. Granted, it hasn't been as obvious as it should be because of all the turnovers this preseason. However, if the defense's primary way of getting off the field is waiting for Woodson to strip the ball from a receiver, its going to a long season.

And it was not just the Cardinals that made the first string defense look bad. I'm sure that most have already forgotten that the Browns' starting offense marched down to the Packers 13 (converting 2 of 3 third downs) before committing a 10 yard penalty and then missing a routine fieldgoal. Had the Browns made that field goal (and imagine if they punched it in for a td), I think Packer fans would have a much more level-headed, and in my opinion accurate view, of this defense. But they missed, and Buffalo committed a ton of turnovers, and voila the Packers starting defense pitched a "shutout" through the first two preseason games. Enter the over-exuberance.

Now, here is the where I add some caveats. (And I do this for a very specific reason: if the Packers defense is awesome right out of the gate, I won't have to admit that I was wrong.) We have only seen the preseason version of the defense. We do know that Capers is holding some super secret stuff back for the regular season. And the third down percentage will get better. That is a near absolute certainty. It has to get better, because there is nowhere to go but up. But the question is: how much better?

Here's an idea. Instead of talking Super Bowl (you know who you guys are) let's wait and see. And don't throw up your hands in disgust if the defense enters the season shaky. There will be a learning curve.

Let's give it some time.


.



Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Are you ready to see Kampman in Vikings' Purple?

If not: get ready. Maybe he will pick up his game over the course of the season, but as of right now, Kampman looks just okay. Which signals that he probably will not be back with the Packers next season. Which means he will be on a new team.

Which team is obsessed with former Packers? Which team actually signed Kampman to an offer sheet back in 2005? How many rhetorical questions will I ask?

Unless the Packers franchise Kampman and trade him out of the division, Kampman will be a Viking next season. Get used to the idea.

It will be a sad day.

Kampman, Pat (though he has to stop playing sometime) & Kevin Williams, and Jared Allen.

Crap.

The smart move would have been to trade Kampman back in March. Based on the Allen trade I think the Packers could have gotten a first rounder for Kampman. Which would have meant not needing to trade away the whole draft to move up and get Mathews.

But instead we will likely see one season of a perfectly whelming Kampman, and then get to watch him chase Rodgers around for a few seasons.

Still doesn't seem worth it to me.

.

CHZHD Nation @ 8

Little late on this but:

Packer Tranplants - Last Days of Camp