K-town
05-24-2006, 06:54 PM
WEDNESDAY, May 24, chat transcript
Cliff Christl
Packer Insider columnist
Cliff Christl answered your questions about the Packers following their recent minicamp.
Q: Crazy Dave of Lunatic Fringe, WI - Cliff, Would you agree that the with the signings of Woodson and Manual, that essentially all of the roster spots in the Packers secondary have improved on paper this offseason? At #1 corner you've got Woodson over Harris. #2 corner Harris over Carroll (big jump). #3 corner Carroll over Horton/Hawkins (big jump). #4 corner the better of Horton/Hawkins. #1 Safety Collins improves in his second year. #2 safety Manuel over Roman. #3 safety Roman over Underwood/Franz. #4 safety Underwood improves in 2nd year. To me that looks like 8 total roster spots that will be better on paper in the secondary. Add Hawk, the depth at LB and DL, and a second year in the same scheme, and it looks like the defense should show some marked improvement this year. Where am I wrong?
A: Cliff Christl - Crazy Dave from Lunatic Fringe, WI, your question was posted first. Your point is well taken. I agree with your trickle down effect to an extent. But the only big jump that there will be is if Woodson returns to his Pro Bowl form and, once again, becomes one of the premier corners in the NFL. That would be a big jump. Carroll over Horton/Hawkins is not a big jump. Manuel over Roman isn't a big jump. Manuel couldn't beat out Roman in Cincinnati. Somewhere between about 1 and 10% of NFL players will give a team a big boost over the previous starter. And probably somewhere around 10% are stiffs, not fit for their jobs. The rest are all about the same. It's like life. I'm guessing here, but how many people have elevated IQs? Ten per cent? Maybe another 10% are dimwits. And the other 80% are of average intelligence. But back to your question, Woodson hasn't been a Pro Bowl corner for four years. So him returning to form is a big if. Manuel was a career backup until the Ken Hamlin incident last year. So we're talking about a pretty average player. Woodson is a key and maybe Collins because as you noted, he might have a nice upside. Among the others, Carroll, Hawkins, maybe Horton, Underwood, maybe even a rookie like Tra Boger, all have to get better. They have to stay healthy and become consistent players.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Wayne of New Haven - Hey Cliff, I enjoy reading your camp blogs. We've heard plenty about how Colledge is doing on the left side of the line, but I am wondering how Coston is doing on the other side? Does he look stronger than last year because I believe that his strength was his downfall last year? Also, haven't heard too much about the cornerbacks. Last year Hawkins athletic ability seemed to really jump out at you. How did he look these last two minicamps? Is he still making plays but still showing inconsistency? What about Carroll? Does he seem to be taking his demotion well? Also, how do the placekickers look?
A: Cliff Christl - The one-on-one pass blocking was scheduled at the same time as 7-on-7, so my attention was kind of divided. But from what I saw, Coston was still struggling to hold his ground in pass protection. Hawkins has put on some weight, still looks fast and still shows flashes. Mike McCarthy said the coaches thought Hawkins really had a good practice in one of the sessions Friday. As for Carroll, if he's taking his demotion well, it probably would be time to get rid of him. Do you think any team in the NFL would want a player who took a demotion well? The kickers didn't kick during practice, although they went outside on Sunday, I think it was, and maybe did some one-on-one kicking out of our view.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: BC of Orlando - Cliff: Any opinion on the specialists from camp II? Just an observation, but McCarthy made these guys kick in the elements while Sherman made Chicken Noodle Soup and brought them blankets. It may not work, but I like McCarthy's approach!
A: Cliff Christl - What in the world are you talking about? What have you seen from Orlando that I haven't been able to detect after watching every practice of both camps? The punters didn't even punt at this last camp; and I just wrote that the kickers didn't kick.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Kevin Bachler of Park Ridge, IL - Hi Cliff, I am curious about Bookman. Has he shown enough in camps that he might stick around and get a chance to develop his upside with his size and speed? And, is he necessarily a wide receiver, or could he be a corner, a safety, or even a running back?
A: Cliff Christl - There's some potential there. My sense is that his hands are maybe a little more suspect than some of the other first-year and rookie receivers, although he certainly didn't have an inordinate number of drops. He has a shot. That speed can't be ignored. But why move him to another position? I don't know his background, don't know if he ever played defense. But the guy hasn't played football in three years. He's going to have a hard enough time learning one position.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dan of The Great Devine - Ted has the organization on the right course. We may not know for three years about his draft classes, but he has infused the organization with young talent. This is much more exciting than the typical 6 player Sherman draft. Don't shoot his dog...
A: Cliff Christl - I like his philosophy. It's essentially the Ron Wolf way, the time-tested approach that almost all championship teams have taken. Focus on the draft, spend sparingly on free agents, and be constantly on the alert for free agents who come cheap. Sherman did what he thought was best to try and win another Super Bowl while Favre was still around. He failed, but I don't think he was necessarily wrong to take that approach. So I wouldn't be that harsh in my criticism of him and I wouldn't turn cartwheels over what Thompson has done. You can go gaga all you want, but I'll reserve judgment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jamie E. of Milwaukee of thee Wisconsin - Cliff, I hear a lot of the mainstream media (including yourself) state that the Packers may get a thumbs down in the draft for giving up Walker for nothing more than a second round pick (which was traded for additional) picks. The one thing I don't read or hear is any of you offering any alternatives. The Packers could've kept Walker with his questionable knee (that's before we all knew he had another surgery this year), allowed him to be a direct or indirect (media driven) distraction, who could hold out until Week 8 and get paid his full salary minus the penalties of games missed. Then he'd leave in free agency and we'd get nothing. Best case scenario is that he simply shut his mouth, there was a media driven distraction, he played his butt off to get top dollar, and he left. With or without Walker, we're not winning a Super Bowl this year so the most he could've did was give us another two victories which would probably take us out of the Top 15 in next year's draft. I'm speculating on our draft position, but since this was Walker's final season under contract, the Packers had everything to lose and nothing to gain by holding on to him. So why should Thompson face any criticism for what he ended up doing?
A: Cliff Christl - You're making stuff up. That has not been my position. I have not criticized Thompson for the trade, only for maybe not addressing Walker's unhappiness earlier and trying to nip it in the bud. I've also written that Walker is a big loss. He was the Packers' only relatively young playmaker. I've written that they can't possibly replace him this year. But I've also written that Thompson probably had no choice but to trade him and, no doubt, got the most that he could. But it was a costly trade. The Packers were forced to trade their best first-round draft pick in 18 years and someone who was just four years into his career for a second-round choice. But please don't make things up. If you're going to repeat what I've written get it right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: GBP of 2006 of What is my record? - Cliff, Here's a riddle...I have a solid defense, good coverage teams, bad return teams and bad specialists. A HOF QB (probably over the hill) and a bunch of "guys" on offense. What is my record in 2006? Unless Gado becomes Terrell Davis, I see 7-9.
A: Cliff Christl - It's anybody's guess. So much depends on the development of certain young players and injuries. But I don't see anything to get overly optimistic about at this point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Big Man of Orlando - I realize it may be hard to tell at this juncture, but what is Mike Montgomery's potential? KGB? Kenny Peterson? or Jonathon Brown?
A: Cliff Christl - I was watching Montgomery during an agility drill and thinking again that he looks like a better athlete than he's given credit for being. I thought that last year. I'm not saying a great athlete, but decent. What's his ceiling? He's not going to be KGB. He doesn't have the speed. But I think he could be a very solid player in a rotation. KGB was a real find in the fifth round. I realize he has some limitations. But you rarely find pass rushers with his speed that late in the draft. Montgomery was drafted in the sixth round. So you have to be realistic here. I believe in 39 years of the common draft there have been only two defensive ends -- Michael Sinclair and Doug Betters -- taken in the sixth round who became Pro Bowl players. And Sinclair and Betters weren't exactly superstars. And that's two out of about 1,250 picks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Da Vinci of Paris, Rome or wherever - What is your feeling on drafting football players over athletes? I believe this was Sherman's problem...he spent his whole GM life searching for the holy grail...the one guy that could turn the D around. He chose Reynolds over Stroud, Dan Morgan, Casey Hampton and Nate Clements. Granted hindsight is 20-20, but this decision killed Sherman
A: Cliff Christl - Ron Wolf was in charge of that draft. Don't blame that on Sherman and don't let Wolf off the hook. Yes, Sherman influenced the picks. But so did many of the scouts. And Wolf had the final say. I know that's a typical fan's reaction to blame the guy that's gone for everything and pin all your hopes on the new guy. But the older fans among you should be wise to that by now. Bart Starr was going to be the savior. Then Forrest Gregg. Then Lindy Infante. Wasn't Infante voted the greatest coach in Packers' history in a fan poll? Let's wait and see what Sherman's place in history will be and what this new regime's will be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Sean Griffith of Myrtle Beach, SC - We just had our Harley week down here in Myrtle Beach and it was very crowded. Have you ever attended a Harley Davidson festival anywhere? Also, thanks for the great updates on the mini-camps. Your reports on Aaron Rodgers seemed to contradict the recent articles I have read. Does he consistently miss the long ball? Is that something to be overly concerned about right now or does he just need to develop a rhythm with his receivers? Also, I was starting to get a little optimistic about the Packers chances this season, but the Kevin Barry injury has brought one thing significantly into focus for me. The Packers have absolutely no depth on offense. I truly believe that our starters will be good enough to compete for a playoff spot only because the division is so weak and the defense should be respectable. However, no team plays with its starters the whole season. The Packers do not have the depth to survive a whole season with the injuries that are sure to come. If Mark Tauscher or Chad Clifton go down, do the Packers have any viable options?
A: Cliff Christl - I'd love to make Myrtle Beach. Is it the same week every year? I've done Route 66 from start to finish. I've been to Sturgis once. But the company won't let me go anymore because of training camp. I haven't been able to get off the week of Daytona, either. So my schedule prevents me from getting to events that I'd like to attend. As for Rodgers, I'm not sure what articles you've read and whether they were positive or negative. I think he looks much improved. He looks much less mechanical than he did last year. Tom Rossley kept saying last year that, in time even without changing his delivery, Rodgers would begin to look more natural and he does. He's throwing short with accuracy and seems to be finding the open receivers. He hasn't thrown many interceptions. The coaches say he has a good presence in the huddle. He called some audibles in this camp and got people in the right position. The guy has the ability to play qb in the NFL. But the little things figure to determine whether he's a success or failure. I know some of you want an answer right now. But you're not going to get it. I have two questions about Rodgers after watching two minicamps. One is his accuracy on the deep ball. I didn't chart every team and 7-on-7 session, but I charted most of them in this last minicamp. And I had Rodgers 3 for 11 with an interception on deep balls. Again, I don't know about the other stories. But did those people keep a play-by-play in practice? Very few reporters do; some never do. Sometimes I do; sometimes I don't depending on what I want to watch. But I tried to do it this entire camp. Something else I wonder about after this camp is Rodgers' height? He's listed at 6-2, the same as Favre, but I think Favre stands taller in the pocket. And another reporter agreed with me as we were talking on the sidelines. The reason I mention that is because Rodgers had two passes knocked down at the line in this last camp. That's not a great number, but it raises questions. As far as the Packers' depth, I agree there isn't much on offense. But I also question the front-line talent. And the Bears don't look like a good team on paper? If Rex Grossman takes the next step forward and Cedric Benson pans out, I wouldn't be surprised if they made it to the Super Bowl. I realize those are big ifs, but the Bears are light years ahead of the Packers on defense. They have more promise at running back, just as good a line and receivers, if not better. The only big difference has been at quarterback.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John Moorer of Grand Terrace, Ca. - Cliff We all can harp about last seasons debacle but if not for injuries I strongly believe the this team could have been a contender for the division title. Myself I see a stronger defense than what we had last year with new additions and 2nd year in the scheme, also I think offensively this team might surprise some people, your thoughts or do you think I am just farting in the wind???
A: Cliff Christl - Probably, but don't you have an ocean breeze to carry it away? I agree that if they hadn't lost Walker and Green, they probably would have been contenders last year or at least close to a .500 team. In two minicamps, what I see is a team with more good young prospects on the roster, but also a team without any stars. Without Favre and Woodson and Hawk at this last camp, it was a pretty faceless bunch. What players at this last camp could develop into something special? I didn't see a one. Like I said. I see a team with an improving infrastructure. But that's not enough to go from 4-12 to 10-6 or maybe even 8-8. Plus, I thought the practices at this last camp were sloppy at times. A lot of defensive linemen jumping offsides in team and one-on-one drills; lot of false starts. So we'll see.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: kwed of dubuque - Cliff, I believe that replacing carroll is/was the offseason's biggest priority. His big play problems caused the defense to stay on the field far too many times. I believe that Brett Favre can be a better player by being ahead or in a close game more often. I don't have the stats, but my guess is most of his picks came with the team trailing significantly and him forcing the issue trying to score 14 points on one play. Your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - Playing with a lead and being able to run the ball would make a difference for any quarterback. If you've got a running game that ranks 30th in the league, your quarterback probably is going to throw a lot of interceptions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Darrin of Longmont, CO - Cliff, Do you have any insight on what happened with Javon Walker and Packer management between the time of his injury in Game 1 (Sept. '05) and his public grievance/tantrum in February '06 when he threatened to retire before ever playing again for the Packers? Did he approach the Packers with another query to re-open negotiations only to be rebuffed? Or, was his mind essentially made up to pursue this route when he became injured? I know the Packers HAVE re-worked contracts while a player is approaching their final year, and I suppose I was expecting that they would have done so in Walker's case. I haven't seen or read much reporting on anything that might have happened "behind the scenes." The reporting has essentially covered what everybody knew all along --- Walker was unhappy and wanted out. Was there any more to this story?
A: Cliff Christl - He wanted more money. He said he approached Thompson about it and was rejected. I don't think there's any great mystery behind it all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: D. Boon of San Pedro, CA - What was the greater trade - Favre for the Pack's 1992 first rounder, or Brock for Broglio?
A: Cliff Christl - That's a great question, the best in a long time. And a tough call. I'd say Favre was the better deal. Favre's a home-run hitter; Brock a singles hitter, although he could turn just about any single into a double.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bob of Richmond, Va. - Cliff, if I recall correctly I think you mentioned once that throwing an accurate deep ball isn't necessarily one of Brett Favre's strong suits. I noticed some of your blog comments on Aaron Rogers during this last mini-camp and wonder how you would compare the two in that aspect of passing, and what major differences do you see in Rogers from training camp last summer?
A: Cliff Christl - You're right. I've written that throwing the deep ball is not one of Favre's strengths, but he has a lot more tools to work with than Rodgers. In his younger days, Favre could make a play out of any broken play, even the ones with the most disastrous starts. And that allowed him to overcome his lack of touch on the deep ball. Rodgers doesn't appear to have the same ability to ad lib. So I think if Rodgers fails to show that he can throw deep consistently, he'll be much easier to defend than a young Favre. Admittedly, it's a two-way street. Give Rodgers a big-time receiver who can go up and win jump balls and he'll have more success throwing deep. In that short time when Javon Walker started making plays, many of them on jump balls, Favre was more successful throwing downfield. But a qb has to show that ability or defenses are going to get wise to it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jack of Denver - I thought that the "new" Packers were going to have big and strong wide receivers. So what's with the 2nd round pick? Seems like a t-buck move to me...
A: Cliff Christl - Jennings is 5-11. He's not 5-9. That's much ado about nothing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: mjh150 of Pittsburgh - With the departure of Longwell, and the unsettled punter situation, it appears that special teams will not be a difference maker this year, considering all the close games they lost last year, even with Longwell on the roster. Has T Thompson sufficiently addressed one of the most glaring weaknesses of the team, or is he just banking on an improved defense being the deciding factor in winning the close games. Your time and insights are appreciated.
A: Cliff Christl - Again, I remind you that Longwell was not drafted, was cut by the 49ers after minicamp, claimed by the Packers and made 24 of 30 field goals as a rookie. The specialists may well be the Packers' Achilles' heel this season. And, no doubt, Ted Thompson would prefer a more settled situation. But, again, what you see on paper often isn't what you see on the field.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ben of Houston - Hi, Cliff. With the instability in the Packers' punting game, do you know why they have never been interested in former UW punter Kevin Stemke? I know this sounds crazy, but he truly was a weapon on some of the Badgers' terrific teams. He was awesome. The Packers have had him for a visit but nothing of course ever materialized. He was certainly a far superior college punter compared to BJ Sander, who was just a guy at OSU. Take care.
A: Cliff Christl - If memory serves me, Stemke was in training camp with the Packers in 2001 and wasn't overly impressive. He has had several chances and hasn't stuck with any team. As of right now, I don't even think he's in the league.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike of Rice Lake - Good Morning. There seems to always be a team or two that surprises everyone each year. Obviously everyone is in the honeymoon stage now but what teams do you think can be that surprise? Arizona (maybe but I am not sure about their defense) other than them I just don't see any team that jumps out. Your thoughts with the Packers schedule and better defense could they be a surprise?
A: Cliff Christl - I haven't given that any thought. I thought Arizona last year and it didn't happen. But I've never been a big Kurt Warner fan. Miami maybe. How about New Orleans if Brees is healthy? If Reggie Bush is everything they say he is, he could basically win three games by himself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Terry Chaney of Royal Oak, Mi - I thought that I read somewhere that the Packers were going to work on kicking in this camp but I don't recall anything in your blog about kick offs or anything like that. Was it that bad or did I miss something.
A: Cliff Christl - They practiced special teams, but no kicking or punting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bruce of Waunakee - Cliff I read your article on the young receivers, but I am more interested in the guys you didn't talk about -- Gardner, Ferguson, Boerigter and Jennings. Despite being labeled a disappointment, Gardener has caught quite a few passes and would seem to fit into the traditional west coast offense much more than Gibbs' system. Boerigter is another big receiver who seemingly was miscast in the KC offense. Jennings seems to have offer a lot of promise. How do you see them? And could Ferguson be the odd man out?
A: Cliff Christl - I think Gardner has looked good in both camps. But why couldn't he cut it in Carolina? The Panthers desperately needed a big receiver opposite Smith. That's a running offense. So let's wait and see. Boerigter isn't as sure-handed as I thought he'd be. I think Ferguson looks healthier and faster, but he hasn't made a lot of plays. I don't think Jennings had a single drop in the first camp. I had him marked down for at least two in this one. The bottom line is it should be a better group than what the Packers finished last season with, but there isn't a Terrell Owens or Steve Smith or Randy Moss or even a Javon Walker in the bunch. You take the best of those receivers and he's a lot closer in ability to Ruvell Martin than Terrell Owens. The gap between Owens and the best of the bunch in the Packers' camp is sizeable. For example, other than Donald Driver, the Packers don't have a receiver who would even play for Arizona. And Driver wouldn't start there. Start comparing their receivers to other teams and they don't look so good. But, again, players can blossom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ann of Amherst, NH - Hi, Cliff, and thanks again for the chats, especially in the offseason. Here is my question: Favre says both that he wants to win and that he will not change the way he plays. But what if those two ideals cannot co-exist? Now, I agree with you that Favre gives this team the best (of what little) chance to win, but I also think that some of the interception-damage was self-inflicted. It seems that older athletes prolong their careers and their success when they modify their game to adjust for diminishing skills and taking more advantage of experience and game smarts. Are healthy and better receivers enough to make much difference? Or does Favre need to discipline the ol' gunslinger within?
A: Cliff Christl - Good points. Athletes have to compensate for age and that includes Favre. But I don't think he can change dramatically. That's part of what made him a great quarterback: He was a risk-taker. Eliminate that aspect of his game and if he has no running game, he's going to be throwing dumpoffs to William Henderson every down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jonathan of Chicago - Cliff, It seems like Ted Thompson and our offensive coordinator weren't on the same page with respect to Barry. Having paid him a notable signing bonus, we now learn that he is at least 20 pounds overweight for the position and likely not a good fit for the zone-blocking scheme. If you know this, why bring him back for that kind of money? Were they that concerned there was no talent in the draft at offensive line? It appears not.
A: Cliff Christl - I think they thought he could compete for a job. That happens all the time in the NFL. Some players get a little money, and get fat and lazy. Others stay motivated. That's what makes the game so interesting. You just never know without the advantage of hindsight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bill of Whiting, NJ - Cliff. Thanks for providing this venue for us fans to ask questions. I am confused as to why TT was willing to extend the contract of Driver and not of Walker. I realize Driver has had more good years, than Walker, but Walker had the great size and speed NFL teams look for, could jump and catch the balls without fear of getting hit. My understanding is Walker was a little older than some of the other players in his class, because he spent a couple years playing baseball, so he could anticipate a "shorter career and window to get the big money." Don't you think that TT would want to make sure he didn't lose a guy like Walker? Do you think he gave Driver the deal, because he couldn't afford to lose both Walker and Driver by being stubborn or principled? Do you think he was playing "hard ball" with Walker, because he thought he had the cards, feeling that Walker had no place to go, with two years left on the contract, but the McKenzie and Walker have proven, they can force trades by simply refusing to play. McKenzie came back, and claimed he was injured, so he receives his salary and contributes nothing. Walker could have stayed out until the last six games, and then become a free agent. And do you think, if he had to do it all over again, TT would like to give the deal to Walker also, rather than losing a Pro Bowl wide receiver for five wannabees (Although I am sure he would never admit it). You often highlight how important play makers are to a team, while the rest of the guys are basically interchangeable. Walker was a play maker, and he won't be replaced. My feelings, which are probably obvious now, are the Packers should have found some way to extend the contract of Walker, when he wanted more money, and found some compromise. Find a way to let him fulfill his contract, while picking up bonus money for the additional years. Once he got injured in game one, they should have still given him some deal which would show they were not going to penalize him for getting hurt in the game. I know there was some question of how he would return from the injury, but nobody in the NFL seriously believed Walker was going to be just a one year wonder, and the Packers screwed up by losing him.
A: Cliff Christl - I think Thompson maybe wanted to send a message at first that he wasn't going to renegotiate with every player who came into his office or freely toss money around at a time when the Packers weren't winning Super Bowls. Wolf did that at the start and left a lot of unhappy players. In Walker's case, Thompson maybe should have been more accommodating. And, my guess is, he learned a lesson and dealt differently with Driver. Plus, once Walker got out, Driver had more leverage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: jim palmer of wausau - why do the Packers continue Why do the Packers continue to try and make a good offensive lineman out of Whittecker (sp)???? It seems rather obvious that he not going to be in the final mix !!
A: Cliff Christl - You know how many players in the NFL struggle for two, three, four years and then suddenly come into their own? You know how many get cut and then make it with a second, third or fourth team? I'm guessing between the two groups, it could be 50% or more. I don't think Whitticker is a left tackle and I don't know if he'll make the team. But there is some potential there. Maybe with the new blocking scheme, he also might be a better fit somewhere else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Erik of Cincinnati - Cliff - Do you have a general sense of what type of coach Mike McCarthy is (motivator, disciplinarian, XO guy, etc.) relative to the type of coach the Packers need right now? I'm always interested if it's the system or the coach in various sports at different levels and am still not clear on McCarthy's value as compared to Mike Sherman's. Thanks for your thoughts.
A: Cliff Christl - He works primarily with the quarterbacks, does some teaching. He seems to be content delegating to his coordinators. I haven't really seen him yell or jump on players for mistakes. His post-practice meetings are much shorter. He's pretty low key. But I don't know if any of that matters. Sherman was about as hands-on as any head coach I've seen; and I'm not sure if it was a good thing or a bad thing. In fact, I don't know that there's an answer. In some areas, it probably was a good thing; in other areas, it wasn't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Alex of Milwaukee - Aside from Daryn Colledge, which new offensive lineman looks like he can help keep Brett upright this year?
A: Cliff Christl - I think it was Sunday when I thought Spitz had a pretty good pass blocking session. Moll wasn't there. I think Wells looks pretty good, but he played last year. If Colledge pans out and proves to be a capable starter this year, the Packers can count their blessings. That's all they can really expect: To have one rookie come through.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Brad Jackomino of Forest Lake, MN. - Cliff, What's up with the Packers Return Game. It's been a very weak area in past years and considering the importance of field position, why hasn't TT been more aggressive in upgrading our return game.
A: Cliff Christl - He drafted three return men. What are you talking about? You want him to bring Travis Williams back from the dead?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Joe of Louisville - This may be too early to be asking this question, but do you believe that McCarthy will attempt to be more controlling of Favre and even get in his face or sit him down if he's making foolish throws or making poor decisions?
A: Cliff Christl - Favre wasn't at this camp. But McCarthy hasn't gotten in anybody's face yet and I'm assuming that he has been true to himself in these minicamps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Buddha of Deerfield, IL - Cliff, thanks for the chats and your non-homer honesty. Is Abdul Hodge capable of playing OLB or to get him on the field will Nick Barnett need to move outside. And if that's the case what is the realistic probability that the Packers will even look at doing that?? Also is Hawk the LB in nickel or barnett when the dust settles.
A: Cliff Christl - Hodge worked just a little on the outside. Normally, coaches don't want to play a rookie at two positions. Makes the learning curve all the steeper. So I'm not sure what they'll do if it appears that Hodge is one of their three best LBs. They might move Barnett, but I don't get any sense that they want to at this point. As for the nickel, they'll both play. I'm assuming Hawk will be in the dime. But I wouldn't be surprised if the Packers played more nickel and less dime this year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Brad of Stevens Point - In your blog, I read with curiosity how both Washington (338 lb) and Allen had (328 lb) had each lost 8 lbs. This question is from a skeptical point of view, but is that really all that significant for some that size or is it just to show they are getting in shape. Your the best writer on Packer Insider with great insight. Thanks for spending so much time with the readers!
A: Cliff Christl - It shows they're not gaining weight. But body fat probably is more important.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: E2 of Minneapolis - Thanks for taking my question Cliff. I know it is very early and football is played in pads but is there a chance we could be ok at WR? As a group what was your impression? The Martin kid sounds interesting, and what about Leo Bookman? I looked up Walkers measureables when we drafted him and he and Bookman are identical in size, only Bookman is much faster. It took Walker three years to contribute anything significant. Can Bookman Catch? If so can he be a Cory Bradford style field stretcher until he learns, if he can learn, how to play in the pros?
A: Cliff Christl - I think to expect anything out of Bookman this year is a pipedream. Look at Williamson with the Vikings last year. He was a top 10 pick -- wasn't he? -- with great speed and he really didn't contribute much. It's unusual these days for even first-round receivers to make an impact. So I don't see some guy who hasn't played in two years even breaking a sweat on game day. But there might be something there that he could be a player maybe in about 2008.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bob of Niwot, CO - Is it time to cut the Donell Washington project, or may he flash his potential this year?
A: Cliff Christl - He didn't deserve to make it last year. The guy can't bend his knees and that's a huge liability. But you look at his arms and see glimpses of his natural strength on the practice field and notice some things in agility drills and you wonder: Why isn't this guy all world? Defensive linemen often are slow to develop. But this might be his make or break year in GB. My guess is that he'll never be a player. But he also could go somewhere else, the switch might go on and he'll suddenly blossom. That, too, happens often with defensive linemen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ty of Milwaukee - Hey Cliff.., Wanted to get your thoughts on the biggest challenge for the Packers this year position wise..? I look at the state of the offensive line and shutter when I think of Brett trying to operate back there. I hope that zone scheme can work miracles but I see challenging times ahead for the offense.
A: Cliff Christl - I think a bigger question is: Who is going to score touchdowns? And if Ahman Green doesn't come back, what are they going to do for backs? Maybe Gado will suffice as a starter, but it's tough to get through a season in the NFL with one back. And Davenport has never stayed healthy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: jeff of Denver - If Al Harris would be traded, how far off is Michael Hawkins from being ready to start?
A: Cliff Christl - I don't see them trading Harris, but I would think Carroll would replace him.
Cliff Christl
Packer Insider columnist
Cliff Christl answered your questions about the Packers following their recent minicamp.
Q: Crazy Dave of Lunatic Fringe, WI - Cliff, Would you agree that the with the signings of Woodson and Manual, that essentially all of the roster spots in the Packers secondary have improved on paper this offseason? At #1 corner you've got Woodson over Harris. #2 corner Harris over Carroll (big jump). #3 corner Carroll over Horton/Hawkins (big jump). #4 corner the better of Horton/Hawkins. #1 Safety Collins improves in his second year. #2 safety Manuel over Roman. #3 safety Roman over Underwood/Franz. #4 safety Underwood improves in 2nd year. To me that looks like 8 total roster spots that will be better on paper in the secondary. Add Hawk, the depth at LB and DL, and a second year in the same scheme, and it looks like the defense should show some marked improvement this year. Where am I wrong?
A: Cliff Christl - Crazy Dave from Lunatic Fringe, WI, your question was posted first. Your point is well taken. I agree with your trickle down effect to an extent. But the only big jump that there will be is if Woodson returns to his Pro Bowl form and, once again, becomes one of the premier corners in the NFL. That would be a big jump. Carroll over Horton/Hawkins is not a big jump. Manuel over Roman isn't a big jump. Manuel couldn't beat out Roman in Cincinnati. Somewhere between about 1 and 10% of NFL players will give a team a big boost over the previous starter. And probably somewhere around 10% are stiffs, not fit for their jobs. The rest are all about the same. It's like life. I'm guessing here, but how many people have elevated IQs? Ten per cent? Maybe another 10% are dimwits. And the other 80% are of average intelligence. But back to your question, Woodson hasn't been a Pro Bowl corner for four years. So him returning to form is a big if. Manuel was a career backup until the Ken Hamlin incident last year. So we're talking about a pretty average player. Woodson is a key and maybe Collins because as you noted, he might have a nice upside. Among the others, Carroll, Hawkins, maybe Horton, Underwood, maybe even a rookie like Tra Boger, all have to get better. They have to stay healthy and become consistent players.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Wayne of New Haven - Hey Cliff, I enjoy reading your camp blogs. We've heard plenty about how Colledge is doing on the left side of the line, but I am wondering how Coston is doing on the other side? Does he look stronger than last year because I believe that his strength was his downfall last year? Also, haven't heard too much about the cornerbacks. Last year Hawkins athletic ability seemed to really jump out at you. How did he look these last two minicamps? Is he still making plays but still showing inconsistency? What about Carroll? Does he seem to be taking his demotion well? Also, how do the placekickers look?
A: Cliff Christl - The one-on-one pass blocking was scheduled at the same time as 7-on-7, so my attention was kind of divided. But from what I saw, Coston was still struggling to hold his ground in pass protection. Hawkins has put on some weight, still looks fast and still shows flashes. Mike McCarthy said the coaches thought Hawkins really had a good practice in one of the sessions Friday. As for Carroll, if he's taking his demotion well, it probably would be time to get rid of him. Do you think any team in the NFL would want a player who took a demotion well? The kickers didn't kick during practice, although they went outside on Sunday, I think it was, and maybe did some one-on-one kicking out of our view.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: BC of Orlando - Cliff: Any opinion on the specialists from camp II? Just an observation, but McCarthy made these guys kick in the elements while Sherman made Chicken Noodle Soup and brought them blankets. It may not work, but I like McCarthy's approach!
A: Cliff Christl - What in the world are you talking about? What have you seen from Orlando that I haven't been able to detect after watching every practice of both camps? The punters didn't even punt at this last camp; and I just wrote that the kickers didn't kick.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Kevin Bachler of Park Ridge, IL - Hi Cliff, I am curious about Bookman. Has he shown enough in camps that he might stick around and get a chance to develop his upside with his size and speed? And, is he necessarily a wide receiver, or could he be a corner, a safety, or even a running back?
A: Cliff Christl - There's some potential there. My sense is that his hands are maybe a little more suspect than some of the other first-year and rookie receivers, although he certainly didn't have an inordinate number of drops. He has a shot. That speed can't be ignored. But why move him to another position? I don't know his background, don't know if he ever played defense. But the guy hasn't played football in three years. He's going to have a hard enough time learning one position.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dan of The Great Devine - Ted has the organization on the right course. We may not know for three years about his draft classes, but he has infused the organization with young talent. This is much more exciting than the typical 6 player Sherman draft. Don't shoot his dog...
A: Cliff Christl - I like his philosophy. It's essentially the Ron Wolf way, the time-tested approach that almost all championship teams have taken. Focus on the draft, spend sparingly on free agents, and be constantly on the alert for free agents who come cheap. Sherman did what he thought was best to try and win another Super Bowl while Favre was still around. He failed, but I don't think he was necessarily wrong to take that approach. So I wouldn't be that harsh in my criticism of him and I wouldn't turn cartwheels over what Thompson has done. You can go gaga all you want, but I'll reserve judgment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jamie E. of Milwaukee of thee Wisconsin - Cliff, I hear a lot of the mainstream media (including yourself) state that the Packers may get a thumbs down in the draft for giving up Walker for nothing more than a second round pick (which was traded for additional) picks. The one thing I don't read or hear is any of you offering any alternatives. The Packers could've kept Walker with his questionable knee (that's before we all knew he had another surgery this year), allowed him to be a direct or indirect (media driven) distraction, who could hold out until Week 8 and get paid his full salary minus the penalties of games missed. Then he'd leave in free agency and we'd get nothing. Best case scenario is that he simply shut his mouth, there was a media driven distraction, he played his butt off to get top dollar, and he left. With or without Walker, we're not winning a Super Bowl this year so the most he could've did was give us another two victories which would probably take us out of the Top 15 in next year's draft. I'm speculating on our draft position, but since this was Walker's final season under contract, the Packers had everything to lose and nothing to gain by holding on to him. So why should Thompson face any criticism for what he ended up doing?
A: Cliff Christl - You're making stuff up. That has not been my position. I have not criticized Thompson for the trade, only for maybe not addressing Walker's unhappiness earlier and trying to nip it in the bud. I've also written that Walker is a big loss. He was the Packers' only relatively young playmaker. I've written that they can't possibly replace him this year. But I've also written that Thompson probably had no choice but to trade him and, no doubt, got the most that he could. But it was a costly trade. The Packers were forced to trade their best first-round draft pick in 18 years and someone who was just four years into his career for a second-round choice. But please don't make things up. If you're going to repeat what I've written get it right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: GBP of 2006 of What is my record? - Cliff, Here's a riddle...I have a solid defense, good coverage teams, bad return teams and bad specialists. A HOF QB (probably over the hill) and a bunch of "guys" on offense. What is my record in 2006? Unless Gado becomes Terrell Davis, I see 7-9.
A: Cliff Christl - It's anybody's guess. So much depends on the development of certain young players and injuries. But I don't see anything to get overly optimistic about at this point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Big Man of Orlando - I realize it may be hard to tell at this juncture, but what is Mike Montgomery's potential? KGB? Kenny Peterson? or Jonathon Brown?
A: Cliff Christl - I was watching Montgomery during an agility drill and thinking again that he looks like a better athlete than he's given credit for being. I thought that last year. I'm not saying a great athlete, but decent. What's his ceiling? He's not going to be KGB. He doesn't have the speed. But I think he could be a very solid player in a rotation. KGB was a real find in the fifth round. I realize he has some limitations. But you rarely find pass rushers with his speed that late in the draft. Montgomery was drafted in the sixth round. So you have to be realistic here. I believe in 39 years of the common draft there have been only two defensive ends -- Michael Sinclair and Doug Betters -- taken in the sixth round who became Pro Bowl players. And Sinclair and Betters weren't exactly superstars. And that's two out of about 1,250 picks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Da Vinci of Paris, Rome or wherever - What is your feeling on drafting football players over athletes? I believe this was Sherman's problem...he spent his whole GM life searching for the holy grail...the one guy that could turn the D around. He chose Reynolds over Stroud, Dan Morgan, Casey Hampton and Nate Clements. Granted hindsight is 20-20, but this decision killed Sherman
A: Cliff Christl - Ron Wolf was in charge of that draft. Don't blame that on Sherman and don't let Wolf off the hook. Yes, Sherman influenced the picks. But so did many of the scouts. And Wolf had the final say. I know that's a typical fan's reaction to blame the guy that's gone for everything and pin all your hopes on the new guy. But the older fans among you should be wise to that by now. Bart Starr was going to be the savior. Then Forrest Gregg. Then Lindy Infante. Wasn't Infante voted the greatest coach in Packers' history in a fan poll? Let's wait and see what Sherman's place in history will be and what this new regime's will be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Sean Griffith of Myrtle Beach, SC - We just had our Harley week down here in Myrtle Beach and it was very crowded. Have you ever attended a Harley Davidson festival anywhere? Also, thanks for the great updates on the mini-camps. Your reports on Aaron Rodgers seemed to contradict the recent articles I have read. Does he consistently miss the long ball? Is that something to be overly concerned about right now or does he just need to develop a rhythm with his receivers? Also, I was starting to get a little optimistic about the Packers chances this season, but the Kevin Barry injury has brought one thing significantly into focus for me. The Packers have absolutely no depth on offense. I truly believe that our starters will be good enough to compete for a playoff spot only because the division is so weak and the defense should be respectable. However, no team plays with its starters the whole season. The Packers do not have the depth to survive a whole season with the injuries that are sure to come. If Mark Tauscher or Chad Clifton go down, do the Packers have any viable options?
A: Cliff Christl - I'd love to make Myrtle Beach. Is it the same week every year? I've done Route 66 from start to finish. I've been to Sturgis once. But the company won't let me go anymore because of training camp. I haven't been able to get off the week of Daytona, either. So my schedule prevents me from getting to events that I'd like to attend. As for Rodgers, I'm not sure what articles you've read and whether they were positive or negative. I think he looks much improved. He looks much less mechanical than he did last year. Tom Rossley kept saying last year that, in time even without changing his delivery, Rodgers would begin to look more natural and he does. He's throwing short with accuracy and seems to be finding the open receivers. He hasn't thrown many interceptions. The coaches say he has a good presence in the huddle. He called some audibles in this camp and got people in the right position. The guy has the ability to play qb in the NFL. But the little things figure to determine whether he's a success or failure. I know some of you want an answer right now. But you're not going to get it. I have two questions about Rodgers after watching two minicamps. One is his accuracy on the deep ball. I didn't chart every team and 7-on-7 session, but I charted most of them in this last minicamp. And I had Rodgers 3 for 11 with an interception on deep balls. Again, I don't know about the other stories. But did those people keep a play-by-play in practice? Very few reporters do; some never do. Sometimes I do; sometimes I don't depending on what I want to watch. But I tried to do it this entire camp. Something else I wonder about after this camp is Rodgers' height? He's listed at 6-2, the same as Favre, but I think Favre stands taller in the pocket. And another reporter agreed with me as we were talking on the sidelines. The reason I mention that is because Rodgers had two passes knocked down at the line in this last camp. That's not a great number, but it raises questions. As far as the Packers' depth, I agree there isn't much on offense. But I also question the front-line talent. And the Bears don't look like a good team on paper? If Rex Grossman takes the next step forward and Cedric Benson pans out, I wouldn't be surprised if they made it to the Super Bowl. I realize those are big ifs, but the Bears are light years ahead of the Packers on defense. They have more promise at running back, just as good a line and receivers, if not better. The only big difference has been at quarterback.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John Moorer of Grand Terrace, Ca. - Cliff We all can harp about last seasons debacle but if not for injuries I strongly believe the this team could have been a contender for the division title. Myself I see a stronger defense than what we had last year with new additions and 2nd year in the scheme, also I think offensively this team might surprise some people, your thoughts or do you think I am just farting in the wind???
A: Cliff Christl - Probably, but don't you have an ocean breeze to carry it away? I agree that if they hadn't lost Walker and Green, they probably would have been contenders last year or at least close to a .500 team. In two minicamps, what I see is a team with more good young prospects on the roster, but also a team without any stars. Without Favre and Woodson and Hawk at this last camp, it was a pretty faceless bunch. What players at this last camp could develop into something special? I didn't see a one. Like I said. I see a team with an improving infrastructure. But that's not enough to go from 4-12 to 10-6 or maybe even 8-8. Plus, I thought the practices at this last camp were sloppy at times. A lot of defensive linemen jumping offsides in team and one-on-one drills; lot of false starts. So we'll see.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: kwed of dubuque - Cliff, I believe that replacing carroll is/was the offseason's biggest priority. His big play problems caused the defense to stay on the field far too many times. I believe that Brett Favre can be a better player by being ahead or in a close game more often. I don't have the stats, but my guess is most of his picks came with the team trailing significantly and him forcing the issue trying to score 14 points on one play. Your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - Playing with a lead and being able to run the ball would make a difference for any quarterback. If you've got a running game that ranks 30th in the league, your quarterback probably is going to throw a lot of interceptions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Darrin of Longmont, CO - Cliff, Do you have any insight on what happened with Javon Walker and Packer management between the time of his injury in Game 1 (Sept. '05) and his public grievance/tantrum in February '06 when he threatened to retire before ever playing again for the Packers? Did he approach the Packers with another query to re-open negotiations only to be rebuffed? Or, was his mind essentially made up to pursue this route when he became injured? I know the Packers HAVE re-worked contracts while a player is approaching their final year, and I suppose I was expecting that they would have done so in Walker's case. I haven't seen or read much reporting on anything that might have happened "behind the scenes." The reporting has essentially covered what everybody knew all along --- Walker was unhappy and wanted out. Was there any more to this story?
A: Cliff Christl - He wanted more money. He said he approached Thompson about it and was rejected. I don't think there's any great mystery behind it all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: D. Boon of San Pedro, CA - What was the greater trade - Favre for the Pack's 1992 first rounder, or Brock for Broglio?
A: Cliff Christl - That's a great question, the best in a long time. And a tough call. I'd say Favre was the better deal. Favre's a home-run hitter; Brock a singles hitter, although he could turn just about any single into a double.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bob of Richmond, Va. - Cliff, if I recall correctly I think you mentioned once that throwing an accurate deep ball isn't necessarily one of Brett Favre's strong suits. I noticed some of your blog comments on Aaron Rogers during this last mini-camp and wonder how you would compare the two in that aspect of passing, and what major differences do you see in Rogers from training camp last summer?
A: Cliff Christl - You're right. I've written that throwing the deep ball is not one of Favre's strengths, but he has a lot more tools to work with than Rodgers. In his younger days, Favre could make a play out of any broken play, even the ones with the most disastrous starts. And that allowed him to overcome his lack of touch on the deep ball. Rodgers doesn't appear to have the same ability to ad lib. So I think if Rodgers fails to show that he can throw deep consistently, he'll be much easier to defend than a young Favre. Admittedly, it's a two-way street. Give Rodgers a big-time receiver who can go up and win jump balls and he'll have more success throwing deep. In that short time when Javon Walker started making plays, many of them on jump balls, Favre was more successful throwing downfield. But a qb has to show that ability or defenses are going to get wise to it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jack of Denver - I thought that the "new" Packers were going to have big and strong wide receivers. So what's with the 2nd round pick? Seems like a t-buck move to me...
A: Cliff Christl - Jennings is 5-11. He's not 5-9. That's much ado about nothing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: mjh150 of Pittsburgh - With the departure of Longwell, and the unsettled punter situation, it appears that special teams will not be a difference maker this year, considering all the close games they lost last year, even with Longwell on the roster. Has T Thompson sufficiently addressed one of the most glaring weaknesses of the team, or is he just banking on an improved defense being the deciding factor in winning the close games. Your time and insights are appreciated.
A: Cliff Christl - Again, I remind you that Longwell was not drafted, was cut by the 49ers after minicamp, claimed by the Packers and made 24 of 30 field goals as a rookie. The specialists may well be the Packers' Achilles' heel this season. And, no doubt, Ted Thompson would prefer a more settled situation. But, again, what you see on paper often isn't what you see on the field.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ben of Houston - Hi, Cliff. With the instability in the Packers' punting game, do you know why they have never been interested in former UW punter Kevin Stemke? I know this sounds crazy, but he truly was a weapon on some of the Badgers' terrific teams. He was awesome. The Packers have had him for a visit but nothing of course ever materialized. He was certainly a far superior college punter compared to BJ Sander, who was just a guy at OSU. Take care.
A: Cliff Christl - If memory serves me, Stemke was in training camp with the Packers in 2001 and wasn't overly impressive. He has had several chances and hasn't stuck with any team. As of right now, I don't even think he's in the league.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike of Rice Lake - Good Morning. There seems to always be a team or two that surprises everyone each year. Obviously everyone is in the honeymoon stage now but what teams do you think can be that surprise? Arizona (maybe but I am not sure about their defense) other than them I just don't see any team that jumps out. Your thoughts with the Packers schedule and better defense could they be a surprise?
A: Cliff Christl - I haven't given that any thought. I thought Arizona last year and it didn't happen. But I've never been a big Kurt Warner fan. Miami maybe. How about New Orleans if Brees is healthy? If Reggie Bush is everything they say he is, he could basically win three games by himself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Terry Chaney of Royal Oak, Mi - I thought that I read somewhere that the Packers were going to work on kicking in this camp but I don't recall anything in your blog about kick offs or anything like that. Was it that bad or did I miss something.
A: Cliff Christl - They practiced special teams, but no kicking or punting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bruce of Waunakee - Cliff I read your article on the young receivers, but I am more interested in the guys you didn't talk about -- Gardner, Ferguson, Boerigter and Jennings. Despite being labeled a disappointment, Gardener has caught quite a few passes and would seem to fit into the traditional west coast offense much more than Gibbs' system. Boerigter is another big receiver who seemingly was miscast in the KC offense. Jennings seems to have offer a lot of promise. How do you see them? And could Ferguson be the odd man out?
A: Cliff Christl - I think Gardner has looked good in both camps. But why couldn't he cut it in Carolina? The Panthers desperately needed a big receiver opposite Smith. That's a running offense. So let's wait and see. Boerigter isn't as sure-handed as I thought he'd be. I think Ferguson looks healthier and faster, but he hasn't made a lot of plays. I don't think Jennings had a single drop in the first camp. I had him marked down for at least two in this one. The bottom line is it should be a better group than what the Packers finished last season with, but there isn't a Terrell Owens or Steve Smith or Randy Moss or even a Javon Walker in the bunch. You take the best of those receivers and he's a lot closer in ability to Ruvell Martin than Terrell Owens. The gap between Owens and the best of the bunch in the Packers' camp is sizeable. For example, other than Donald Driver, the Packers don't have a receiver who would even play for Arizona. And Driver wouldn't start there. Start comparing their receivers to other teams and they don't look so good. But, again, players can blossom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ann of Amherst, NH - Hi, Cliff, and thanks again for the chats, especially in the offseason. Here is my question: Favre says both that he wants to win and that he will not change the way he plays. But what if those two ideals cannot co-exist? Now, I agree with you that Favre gives this team the best (of what little) chance to win, but I also think that some of the interception-damage was self-inflicted. It seems that older athletes prolong their careers and their success when they modify their game to adjust for diminishing skills and taking more advantage of experience and game smarts. Are healthy and better receivers enough to make much difference? Or does Favre need to discipline the ol' gunslinger within?
A: Cliff Christl - Good points. Athletes have to compensate for age and that includes Favre. But I don't think he can change dramatically. That's part of what made him a great quarterback: He was a risk-taker. Eliminate that aspect of his game and if he has no running game, he's going to be throwing dumpoffs to William Henderson every down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jonathan of Chicago - Cliff, It seems like Ted Thompson and our offensive coordinator weren't on the same page with respect to Barry. Having paid him a notable signing bonus, we now learn that he is at least 20 pounds overweight for the position and likely not a good fit for the zone-blocking scheme. If you know this, why bring him back for that kind of money? Were they that concerned there was no talent in the draft at offensive line? It appears not.
A: Cliff Christl - I think they thought he could compete for a job. That happens all the time in the NFL. Some players get a little money, and get fat and lazy. Others stay motivated. That's what makes the game so interesting. You just never know without the advantage of hindsight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bill of Whiting, NJ - Cliff. Thanks for providing this venue for us fans to ask questions. I am confused as to why TT was willing to extend the contract of Driver and not of Walker. I realize Driver has had more good years, than Walker, but Walker had the great size and speed NFL teams look for, could jump and catch the balls without fear of getting hit. My understanding is Walker was a little older than some of the other players in his class, because he spent a couple years playing baseball, so he could anticipate a "shorter career and window to get the big money." Don't you think that TT would want to make sure he didn't lose a guy like Walker? Do you think he gave Driver the deal, because he couldn't afford to lose both Walker and Driver by being stubborn or principled? Do you think he was playing "hard ball" with Walker, because he thought he had the cards, feeling that Walker had no place to go, with two years left on the contract, but the McKenzie and Walker have proven, they can force trades by simply refusing to play. McKenzie came back, and claimed he was injured, so he receives his salary and contributes nothing. Walker could have stayed out until the last six games, and then become a free agent. And do you think, if he had to do it all over again, TT would like to give the deal to Walker also, rather than losing a Pro Bowl wide receiver for five wannabees (Although I am sure he would never admit it). You often highlight how important play makers are to a team, while the rest of the guys are basically interchangeable. Walker was a play maker, and he won't be replaced. My feelings, which are probably obvious now, are the Packers should have found some way to extend the contract of Walker, when he wanted more money, and found some compromise. Find a way to let him fulfill his contract, while picking up bonus money for the additional years. Once he got injured in game one, they should have still given him some deal which would show they were not going to penalize him for getting hurt in the game. I know there was some question of how he would return from the injury, but nobody in the NFL seriously believed Walker was going to be just a one year wonder, and the Packers screwed up by losing him.
A: Cliff Christl - I think Thompson maybe wanted to send a message at first that he wasn't going to renegotiate with every player who came into his office or freely toss money around at a time when the Packers weren't winning Super Bowls. Wolf did that at the start and left a lot of unhappy players. In Walker's case, Thompson maybe should have been more accommodating. And, my guess is, he learned a lesson and dealt differently with Driver. Plus, once Walker got out, Driver had more leverage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: jim palmer of wausau - why do the Packers continue Why do the Packers continue to try and make a good offensive lineman out of Whittecker (sp)???? It seems rather obvious that he not going to be in the final mix !!
A: Cliff Christl - You know how many players in the NFL struggle for two, three, four years and then suddenly come into their own? You know how many get cut and then make it with a second, third or fourth team? I'm guessing between the two groups, it could be 50% or more. I don't think Whitticker is a left tackle and I don't know if he'll make the team. But there is some potential there. Maybe with the new blocking scheme, he also might be a better fit somewhere else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Erik of Cincinnati - Cliff - Do you have a general sense of what type of coach Mike McCarthy is (motivator, disciplinarian, XO guy, etc.) relative to the type of coach the Packers need right now? I'm always interested if it's the system or the coach in various sports at different levels and am still not clear on McCarthy's value as compared to Mike Sherman's. Thanks for your thoughts.
A: Cliff Christl - He works primarily with the quarterbacks, does some teaching. He seems to be content delegating to his coordinators. I haven't really seen him yell or jump on players for mistakes. His post-practice meetings are much shorter. He's pretty low key. But I don't know if any of that matters. Sherman was about as hands-on as any head coach I've seen; and I'm not sure if it was a good thing or a bad thing. In fact, I don't know that there's an answer. In some areas, it probably was a good thing; in other areas, it wasn't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Alex of Milwaukee - Aside from Daryn Colledge, which new offensive lineman looks like he can help keep Brett upright this year?
A: Cliff Christl - I think it was Sunday when I thought Spitz had a pretty good pass blocking session. Moll wasn't there. I think Wells looks pretty good, but he played last year. If Colledge pans out and proves to be a capable starter this year, the Packers can count their blessings. That's all they can really expect: To have one rookie come through.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Brad Jackomino of Forest Lake, MN. - Cliff, What's up with the Packers Return Game. It's been a very weak area in past years and considering the importance of field position, why hasn't TT been more aggressive in upgrading our return game.
A: Cliff Christl - He drafted three return men. What are you talking about? You want him to bring Travis Williams back from the dead?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Joe of Louisville - This may be too early to be asking this question, but do you believe that McCarthy will attempt to be more controlling of Favre and even get in his face or sit him down if he's making foolish throws or making poor decisions?
A: Cliff Christl - Favre wasn't at this camp. But McCarthy hasn't gotten in anybody's face yet and I'm assuming that he has been true to himself in these minicamps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Buddha of Deerfield, IL - Cliff, thanks for the chats and your non-homer honesty. Is Abdul Hodge capable of playing OLB or to get him on the field will Nick Barnett need to move outside. And if that's the case what is the realistic probability that the Packers will even look at doing that?? Also is Hawk the LB in nickel or barnett when the dust settles.
A: Cliff Christl - Hodge worked just a little on the outside. Normally, coaches don't want to play a rookie at two positions. Makes the learning curve all the steeper. So I'm not sure what they'll do if it appears that Hodge is one of their three best LBs. They might move Barnett, but I don't get any sense that they want to at this point. As for the nickel, they'll both play. I'm assuming Hawk will be in the dime. But I wouldn't be surprised if the Packers played more nickel and less dime this year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Brad of Stevens Point - In your blog, I read with curiosity how both Washington (338 lb) and Allen had (328 lb) had each lost 8 lbs. This question is from a skeptical point of view, but is that really all that significant for some that size or is it just to show they are getting in shape. Your the best writer on Packer Insider with great insight. Thanks for spending so much time with the readers!
A: Cliff Christl - It shows they're not gaining weight. But body fat probably is more important.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: E2 of Minneapolis - Thanks for taking my question Cliff. I know it is very early and football is played in pads but is there a chance we could be ok at WR? As a group what was your impression? The Martin kid sounds interesting, and what about Leo Bookman? I looked up Walkers measureables when we drafted him and he and Bookman are identical in size, only Bookman is much faster. It took Walker three years to contribute anything significant. Can Bookman Catch? If so can he be a Cory Bradford style field stretcher until he learns, if he can learn, how to play in the pros?
A: Cliff Christl - I think to expect anything out of Bookman this year is a pipedream. Look at Williamson with the Vikings last year. He was a top 10 pick -- wasn't he? -- with great speed and he really didn't contribute much. It's unusual these days for even first-round receivers to make an impact. So I don't see some guy who hasn't played in two years even breaking a sweat on game day. But there might be something there that he could be a player maybe in about 2008.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bob of Niwot, CO - Is it time to cut the Donell Washington project, or may he flash his potential this year?
A: Cliff Christl - He didn't deserve to make it last year. The guy can't bend his knees and that's a huge liability. But you look at his arms and see glimpses of his natural strength on the practice field and notice some things in agility drills and you wonder: Why isn't this guy all world? Defensive linemen often are slow to develop. But this might be his make or break year in GB. My guess is that he'll never be a player. But he also could go somewhere else, the switch might go on and he'll suddenly blossom. That, too, happens often with defensive linemen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ty of Milwaukee - Hey Cliff.., Wanted to get your thoughts on the biggest challenge for the Packers this year position wise..? I look at the state of the offensive line and shutter when I think of Brett trying to operate back there. I hope that zone scheme can work miracles but I see challenging times ahead for the offense.
A: Cliff Christl - I think a bigger question is: Who is going to score touchdowns? And if Ahman Green doesn't come back, what are they going to do for backs? Maybe Gado will suffice as a starter, but it's tough to get through a season in the NFL with one back. And Davenport has never stayed healthy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: jeff of Denver - If Al Harris would be traded, how far off is Michael Hawkins from being ready to start?
A: Cliff Christl - I don't see them trading Harris, but I would think Carroll would replace him.