OK, on one level, Freeman (a scary name in Packer history, by the way) seems to sound good. But lets look at this from another angle. Right now, it seems like Freeman is expecting to earn the FS spot. So far, so good. What if he doesn't- and remains on the team as a backup? If you've ever been in a situation where someone else gets a position you thought belonged to you- you know what I mean. It can cause problems in the locker room and on the field. It can lead to splits in the defense (in this case). My point: I'm glad Freeman feels he could be a leader on the defense (my goodness, the Packers defense has needed a leader since Butler left!). However, I don't want Freeman to get the job just because he worked with Bates before. I want the best players available on the field, not "legacies" from another team.
There are two ways to read this article:
1. Freeman believes he has earned a spot on the Packers because he has worked in Bates' system in Miami, and can therefore be a leader on the defense.
2. Freeman believes has earned a spot on the Packers because he has worked in Bates' system in Miami, and can therefore he can tell the other Packer players what to do. In effect, he has supplanted Bates as a coach, and has made himself the arbiter of right and wrong.
Admittedly, this may seem extreme, but think of your reaction to "new kids on the block" in your workplace. The last thing you wanted was a "know-it-all". Is this any different in pro-football?
Personally, I hope Freeman works excellently in the system, that Roman returns to the form (I believe) he showed early in the season, where he tackled well and covered decently, then deteriorated as the season progressed; that Carroll stops grabbing receivers, and that Harris isn't forced to be on an island with the opponent's best receivers every play, every game.