motife
04-04-2006, 05:19 PM
Scott, Rosemount, MN: Hi Chris--if Vince Young is available at 5th pick, would you select him, even if Favre returns this year?
ch: I think the Packers have to seriously consider him, but at the end of the day this is what I would do: Take Mario Williams, DE, NC State, if he's available at No. 5. If not, I would consider Vince Young, QB, Texas, and I would entertain any and every offer for him - if I get any from teams wanting to trade up to No. 5 to draft him. If I didn't get a whopper deal for Vince Young, I would stay put at No. 5 and select Maryland TE Vernon Davis for a multitude of reasons. The guy is a beast. He is 6-4 1/2, 255 pounds and runs a 4.38 40-yard dash. I saw the tape of his workout. All I could say is, "Wow." The tight end is valuable in the true, pure West Coast offense. Packers fans know it, and fortunately coach Mike McCarthy knows it. So Davis helps right away in the double-tight end (Tiger) formation with Bubba Franks. If Franks is injured, Davis is your starter and you don't suffer. Franks and Davis would help the run game in the two-tight end set, and the passing game because Davis has the speed to get deep down the middle. And one of McCarthy's tenets is to attack the middle of the field. Davis was still accelerating when he hit the tape in the 40-yard dash at the combine. He also has soft hands, and amazingly, a pretty low center of gravity and strength that allows him to stand up against a bigger, stronger defensive end. He is a rare player. He would impact your offense immediately, and he could help cover up a deficiency at receiver. In passing situations, the Packers could deploy Donald Driver, Robert Ferguson or Rod Gardner, and Davis - who immediately creates a mismatch/match up problem. And finally, Davis is the offensive weapon that could make any quarterback better. I can picture Brett Favre or Aaron Rodgers hitting Davis on a crossing route and watching the big tight end sprint away from the defense. If I'm the Packers,and Mario Williams isn't there, I sit tight, select Vernon Davis with no apologies, and count my draft-day blessings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RH, Texas: Chris- I am sure I am in a huge minority as the local media and most Packer fans overwhelmingly see absolutely no problem what-so-ever in how Favre has handled things this off season. As much as I admire Favre and what he has meant to the game and the Packers, I am bitterly disappointed in this melodrama that I believe he created. Furthermore, I don't care what the business is, when the tail starts wagging the dog it's trouble and I don't care how big the Superstar or what his acomplishments are or have been. It's obvious he is more or less challenging Thompson and McCarthy which is a problem but he is being very public about it. I guess I am in the "lunatic fringe" as another reporter up there has labeled anyone who doesn't get good feelings over Favre's handling things. I can say with absolute certainty that if one single person how talented in spec. warfare in the navy would challenge the leaders they would have been run out of Coronado in a matter of minutes. Brett Favre included. You wrote in an article a couple weeks back that if Favre wouldn't commit to two years, then he shouldn't come back at all. After his "what are they going to do cut me" statement he followed it up with if I come back this will definately be my last year. Favre obviously has some serious animosity towards the team for whatever reason, and if he comes back with that mindset with the idea this is the last year, how is that beneficial to the Packers, and lost in this whole melodrama is what is best for the team. If he is openly challenging the team and trying to dicate decisions through ESPN soundbites and then he says he is only coming back for one more year, is it maybe time to go into a full blown rebuild. Favre is a top 5 QB who can play with anyone without a doubt. I think he'd regret leaving early (too early) but what good is one year realy going to do. If the Packers get to 8-8 this year it will be an achievement. 2007 could be the step up year, but I don't see it this year.
ch: I spoke with coach Mike McCarthy on Friday. He looked me straight in the eye and assured me that nothing Brett Favre has done, or has said, has in any way impeded or compromised his ability to implement a new beginning over there. He also said he needs to have Favre here and ready to go in time for the first minicamp in early May. THAT is when Favre's absence, or indecision, will be a problem for the team. NOT BEFORE. Look, if the head coach is OK with what's happening, why should the media or fans get in an uproar. If Favre doesn't have an answer for the Packers in time for the first minicamp, and McCarthy decides to proceed without him, I will be the first to commend the team. However, until that happens, I wouldn't be too quick to judge Favre. It is amazing to me how quickly some fans are willing to believe any BS they get spoon fed by national talk radio, and how quick they are to want to prove that Favre isn't the man they thought he was because of a former teammate's comments. What does Mark Chmura know about the situation? Has he talked with McCarthy? Or GM Ted Thompson for that matter? Or is he just upset because he and Favre haven't remained close through the years? Let this thing play out. If he doesn't decide in time for the mini-camp, it's time to move on without him. It's really that simple.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard , Oshkosh, WI: The TE makes sense but, whatabout our Defense? Wouldn't AJ Hawk also be a good pick?
ch: The only way the Packers could justify selecting AJ Hawk is if they trade down several spots in order to acquire more picks and then get him. He's a great value at the No. 8, 9 or 10 pick. At No. 5? Uh-uh. Davis is a truly special athlete that can impact a game immediately. Hawk, while a very good tight end, isn't special in any of the measurables. He might be a very, very good NFL linebacker for years. But if he and Davis both fulfill their potential, Davis could be a TE that changes an offense's ability to succeed. He could be one of the best to play the position. That will never be the case with Hawk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gene, chicago: Chris, this is a duplicate of a question submitted yesterday.Do you think #4 is primarily concerned about getting some decent centers and guards to prevent last year's fiascoes in pass protection, and that is what he is "holding out" for? If so, we can definitely understand.
ch: You have hit the nail on the head. He is willing to come back for one more season, but he doesn't have much interest in getting the hell beaten out of him ala the December game at Chicago. Right now, depending on how much you trust that McCarthy and Jagodzinski's zone blocking scheme and running game are going to be effective, Favre probably does have cause for concern. Right now, GM Ted Thompson has replaced a former but fading Pro Bowl center (Mike Flanagan) and guard (Marco Rivera) with a seventh-round pick (Scott Wells) and a rookie (Will Whitticker). He also replaced a Top 5 guard in Mike Wahle with, well, nothing of any consequence. I think I see why Favre is concerned about that area of the team. And that, I believe, is the No. 1 reason for the wait-and-see approach. Stay tuned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Fuller, Edmond: Hey Chris, not sure if yesterday's questions are still in the bank or not, but what's the general consensus you're hearing - from fans, colleagues, and players alike - following Favre's "What are they going to do, cut me?" comment, and then Chmura's comments on Favre? I thought that was a ridiculously stupid comment by Favre, and for someone who has started referring to himself in the third person quite a bit over the last few years, this latest in the "holier than thou" is disappointing because it's starting to cast a shadow over a brilliant career, both on the field, and how he's perceived off the field by both fans & the media.
ch: Patrick, Take a deep breath, relax and recite after me, "It's going to be OK. It's going to be OK." Favre's comment, "What are they going to do, cut me?" wasn't the entire quote. What Favre said was that he wasn't aware of any deadline (because there wasn't one) and that the Packers hadn't told him about a deadline, so if he doesn't decide whether to play or retire, what are they going to do, cut me? The point people are missing is that there WAS NO DEADLINE. Whatever media report from Orlando, Fla., that you read that said there was a deadline was DEAD WRONG. Fans ought to be unhappy about that FACT, not one part of a comment Favre said when asked about a deadline that didn't exist. Please, someone out there, help me understand what I am missing and others are seeing (or in some cases exxaggerating)? I don't get it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie, San Francisco: Hey Chris -- Do you find it strange that Favre & Bus Cook both came out with the "what are they going to do -- cut me (him)?" quote within 24 hours of each other? Followed up by "I'll definitely only play 1 year" assertion from Favre. Seems very orchestrated to me. Honestly, with the bulk of Free Agency having taken place now -- does anyone really think the Packers can do anything dramatically to improve their team on paper the rest of this offseason? I don't think Favre or Cook thinks they can -- which would leave open only the option of cutting or trading #4 if they want to get any value out of him. The current "I'm going to take my ball and go home" threats, I hate to say, sure do sound a lot like the current rhetoric from Javon Walker and his daddy -- or the routine T.O. & Rosenhaus, etc. use annually.
ch: How are Favre's and Walker's situations alike? Walker is a one-time Pro Bowl receiver that threatened to hold out unless the Packers signed him to a lucrative contract extension. Favre is a Hall of Famer who says he wants to see what the team will do before he decides whether to retire or return. There's a key word in there: TEAM. Favre has no desire to come back, if only for one season, and get pounded behind an inferior offensive line. I don't blame him. I wouldn't either. But I am sure Favre believes that if the offensive line can be shored up, and there are still a free agent or two (especially at center) that could help immensely, he'd be more inclined to return. You know why? Because he still believes that if he has the time to throw, and they get can a running game going, they can win a lot of games. How does Favre's desire to have a NFL-caliber offensive line so the team has a chance to win games and he doesn't get sawed in half equate to a young receiver wanting to get paid big-time while there's still two years on his current deal? Again, discuss, and then explain. I'm curious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gene, chicago: Let's say that the Packers are sitting at the fifth pick, Bush, Leinart, Mario, and Ferguson being off the board. The Cardinals, at #10, want to trade up to #5. What would be a fair offer?
ch: The NFL has a formula, or a chart, if you will, that assigns a point value to each draft pick. I don't have the chart with me. Mike Sherman borrowed it two years ago, and I haven't seen it since. At any rate, you can look at past examples of trades to get a ballpark idea. If it's me, and since you asked, I'd hear what Arizona offered and if it wasn't their 10th pick plus a strong interior offensive lineman and/or a second-round pick, I'd draft Vernon Davis and be quite happy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mad Dog, Texas: Chris, From your observation of Sherman and McCarthy, who inspires more confidence in you. I never thought Sherman could think on his feet so to speak. If something happened off script, it seemed to confuse him. If you had nothing to look at in the past and interviewed McCarthy and Sherman and had to hire one or the other on how they struck you personally, who would you pick and what would the reason be for the decision.
ch: If I am going to decide which to hire, that means I am going to go with the guy that I feel most comfortable with, ala GM Ted Thompson's comments. In Sherman, I would guess you'd get a highly organized, totally committed head coach that could be a demanding son of a gun behind the scenes. I would guess his game preparation would be excellent bordering on maniacal. But I would have to have concerns about his ability to - as you say - think on his feet. I think Sherman's strength was analyzing, and his weakness was a lack of spontaneity, further compounded by indecision at the critical moment. In McCarthy, I get a guy that I could work with. He is personable - but not in a superficial way - and he is a "what you see is what you get" kind of guy. He is motivated, confident and seemingly prepared to run the show as a coach. Of course, there's no way to know that until he has to be on the sideline and in the hotseat on game day. Either man, I believe, would be a good candidate. I just happen to think that McCarthy's philosophy of sticking with what works, relying on the short passing game and being OK with punting and playing defense give him a chance to be really, really good. And I think the players will want to play hard for him, and he has the advantage of not being the same guy that negotiated or had a role in their current contract status. That is big. Furthermore, McCarthy gears everything toward giving the draft picks and first-year players a realistic chance to prove what they can do and make the team. In today's football where young players need to contribute almost right away, I think McCarthy's plan gives the Packers a better chance for long-term success. I just hope three years isn't too short a time for McCarthy to prove himself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim, LA: Did McCarthy give any indications on what they are looking for if they shop Walker?
ch: The Bears' defense. Just kidding. The offers will come for Walker, and they'll be ridiculous, but Thompson might bite if the price is right. I just have no way of knowing what the price might be. It's impossible to guess because the combinations of draft picks and/or current pros is impossible to calculate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powerball, East Texas: Chris- You said you didn't get it on why everyone has some concerns over this Favre deal. First up, Favre did say "what are they going to do cut me?" but he did say it not with an arrogant tone, but it was not the best quote he could have come up with, but Bus Cook was quoted with the same phrase by two other local papers, so it was a line that had been talked about before being made." Secondly Favre wants this total all out commitment from everyone inthe organization, but even from a symbolic standpoint, he doesn't attend mini-camps last year. He doesn't attend Wednesday meeting half the time and just because Sherman okayed it, it doesn't look good. We can talk all day that the 29 picks were not all on Favre and were a product of the players on the field around him, but TWENTY NINE PICKS...come on. TJ Rubley doesn't throw 29 picks and Favre to my knowledge hasn't a single time acknowledged that those 29 picks might have been a contributing factor and perhaps he could have played a little smarter on his part. He wants all these things done to improve the teams chances but if he stepped up and led by example and showed a total dedication to the season, it would have a postive effect. And before anyone says he doesn't need to be in Green Bay getting after it, I'd remind anyone that most of us would work like a dog in any condition at any task for 10 million a year. Those numbers get tossed around pretty casually like they are meaningless, but if I'm paying a person 10 million a year, I'd want to see them working daily with total committment instead of catching glimpses of him on ESPN trying to tell people how to run the team. And if having Favre in Green Bay is just mind boggling insane to expect, aren't there a lot of players for the Packers there right now doing just that. I guess that is what a few people think anyhow. Not saying we have a monopoly on how things should be, but that is one mindset out there.
ch: Favre needs to be here for the first mini-camp practice in May. If he's not, there's a big problem that has to be dealt with. Until then, why all the hand-wringing? Do I think Favre has handled this the best way possible? Obviously not. But that doesn't mean Favre's a bad teammate, or bad for the team, if he isn't in Rock Gullickson's weight room jacking iron next to Kenny Peterson. C'mon. As for what happened in the past, let's just say there's a reason that Mike Sherman isn't the head coach, or A head coach anywhere, for that matter. It's old news. The 29 picks were ridiculous. So was throwing more passes than any team in Packers history. So was abandoning the running game, exposing the QB on the crucial play against Pittsburgh and generally not relying on common sense to try to eke out victories. Favre was frustrated and his play suffered mightily at times because of it. At the same time, he led the NFL in TD passes after six weeks. But eventually he was worn down by the team's unrealistic chance to win each week. That was the first time he'd ever gone through something like that in 15 years. I'm not exxonerating it. He didn't need to go the "I don't give a damn" route at times, but that does help to explain it. He wants an offensive line he can function behind so the Packers have a chance to win and he has a chance to get out alive. Now, in GM Ted Thompson's defense, the off-season isn't over yet, and either you trust Thompson to build a NFL-caliber line or you don't. It's that simple. Right now, Favre is skeptical. Seems to me the fans are, too. Whether it's Favre or Rodgers at QB, the Packers' offensive line, as it stands today, is a longshot to stand up. Does anyone out there disagree?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul, Gardner, MA: Hi Chris, I've seen some GM wannabes pontificating on if Ferguson is available at #5, that the Pack should pick him, put him at RT and move Tausch to RG. Doesn't this go directly against Jagodinski's "smaller, athletic" offensive line beliefs? If Ferguson was available at #5, could we afford to pass him up?
ch: I'd take Davis over D'Brickashaw Ferguson. Tauscher is a really good RT, and Clifton is solid at LT. Why mess with the only two sure things on the offensive line? Plus, nobody knows for sure if Ferguson can play right tackle, and I doubt he'd really want to go there. He is good enough right now to be a strong left tackle, and those guys are among the rarest to find. The Packers aren't drafting the left tackle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don, Dallas: Do you still believe it was the right decision to play all starters to win the last game of the year verses "playing to win" with the young guys who give us a better chance to lose and get the higher draft pick? Packer fans who follow the draft are seeing the "cost" of dropping from #2 to #5 and does anyone really feel good about that last win against...oh yah the subs from Seattle? I'll ask you again down stream if we lose Williams and compare his impact with who ever we end up with at 5.
ch: Yes, I do believe it was the right decision. The only time a team has the right to sit starters is if everything's locked up for the post-season and there's nothing to be gained. Otherwise, you play your best players and try to win. Every season is a season unto itself. OK, so the Packers throw the game, risk damaging their credibility with fans who paid hard-earned money to see the Seattle game, draft Mario Williams and then he tears up his knee beyond repair the next week in a motorcycle accident. Now what? There is no guarantee and nobody can read the future so this is all non-sense and foolishness. The Packers are picking fifth for a lot of reasons, and not all of them are because they won the season-finale a year ago. Move on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jobu, Madison: Chris - I'm not one of the people who think we became a 4-12 team by losing two guards, but how is it possible that, with $25M in space this year, we couldn't afford to keep Wahle?
ch: At the time Wahle's $6 million roster bonus or whatever it was that came due, the Packers didn't have the huge money under the salary cap. In fact, they were right up against it and would've had to cut good players to keep Wahle. This is revisionist history. If the Packers did indeed have the $25 million available at the time, I'm guessing they'd have kept him. They didn't. He left. It's that simple.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill, Saratoga,CA: Chris, I saw you wrote in a chat 2 months ago that Favre should take one month to decide then the team needs to move on. Well, what do you say now? How do you think his indecision impacts what his team thinks about his ability to come back and lead. Is there a division in the locker room between players who felt Favre should have stayed out of Walkers business and think that his current antics are not helping the team? Chris, I know you have a close relationship with Brett, but I think it is time for you to call this one as you see it.
ch: McCarthy said he needs everyone at the first minicamp practice in May. That's good enough for me. His decision - or the deliberation with which it took - won't have any affect on his teammates. Other than that they'll be glad if he decides to come back. Players want to win. He gives them the best chance to do that. I don't know if teammates are upset with Favre because of comments he made about Walker, but I do know that teammates aren't thrilled that Walker is threatening to never play here again - a second straight off-season - if he doesn't get what he wants. Call it as I see it? Walker needs to realize he has even less leverage than he did last year, Favre needs to realize he can't wait forever and that he must decide in time for the first minicamp, and fans need to realize that a majority of the opinions and comments regarding this whole Favre ordeal aren't based upon fact. There never was a deadline. The Packers say Favre's indecision, or whatever you want to call it, isn't impacting the team. At least not yet. So how does the way I see it differ with the way you see it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jobu, Madison: Couldn't they have given Wahle a new contract?
ch: The only way to give him a new contract was to cut him, which they did, before his big roster bonus was due. At that point, Wahle could've resigned with the Packers, or he could've done what he did, which was sign a really lucrative deal with the Carolina Panthers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan, Milwaukee: Is Aaron Rodgers in Green Bay and was he looking better at the end of the season compared to in the beginning?
ch: Rodgers has been in Green Bay and he is working out and getting ready for the season. I believe he and Mike McCarthy have spoken, at least conceptually, about the new offense. As for how he looks, well, he looks great. He's fit, he's eager and he's available.
ch: I think the Packers have to seriously consider him, but at the end of the day this is what I would do: Take Mario Williams, DE, NC State, if he's available at No. 5. If not, I would consider Vince Young, QB, Texas, and I would entertain any and every offer for him - if I get any from teams wanting to trade up to No. 5 to draft him. If I didn't get a whopper deal for Vince Young, I would stay put at No. 5 and select Maryland TE Vernon Davis for a multitude of reasons. The guy is a beast. He is 6-4 1/2, 255 pounds and runs a 4.38 40-yard dash. I saw the tape of his workout. All I could say is, "Wow." The tight end is valuable in the true, pure West Coast offense. Packers fans know it, and fortunately coach Mike McCarthy knows it. So Davis helps right away in the double-tight end (Tiger) formation with Bubba Franks. If Franks is injured, Davis is your starter and you don't suffer. Franks and Davis would help the run game in the two-tight end set, and the passing game because Davis has the speed to get deep down the middle. And one of McCarthy's tenets is to attack the middle of the field. Davis was still accelerating when he hit the tape in the 40-yard dash at the combine. He also has soft hands, and amazingly, a pretty low center of gravity and strength that allows him to stand up against a bigger, stronger defensive end. He is a rare player. He would impact your offense immediately, and he could help cover up a deficiency at receiver. In passing situations, the Packers could deploy Donald Driver, Robert Ferguson or Rod Gardner, and Davis - who immediately creates a mismatch/match up problem. And finally, Davis is the offensive weapon that could make any quarterback better. I can picture Brett Favre or Aaron Rodgers hitting Davis on a crossing route and watching the big tight end sprint away from the defense. If I'm the Packers,and Mario Williams isn't there, I sit tight, select Vernon Davis with no apologies, and count my draft-day blessings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RH, Texas: Chris- I am sure I am in a huge minority as the local media and most Packer fans overwhelmingly see absolutely no problem what-so-ever in how Favre has handled things this off season. As much as I admire Favre and what he has meant to the game and the Packers, I am bitterly disappointed in this melodrama that I believe he created. Furthermore, I don't care what the business is, when the tail starts wagging the dog it's trouble and I don't care how big the Superstar or what his acomplishments are or have been. It's obvious he is more or less challenging Thompson and McCarthy which is a problem but he is being very public about it. I guess I am in the "lunatic fringe" as another reporter up there has labeled anyone who doesn't get good feelings over Favre's handling things. I can say with absolute certainty that if one single person how talented in spec. warfare in the navy would challenge the leaders they would have been run out of Coronado in a matter of minutes. Brett Favre included. You wrote in an article a couple weeks back that if Favre wouldn't commit to two years, then he shouldn't come back at all. After his "what are they going to do cut me" statement he followed it up with if I come back this will definately be my last year. Favre obviously has some serious animosity towards the team for whatever reason, and if he comes back with that mindset with the idea this is the last year, how is that beneficial to the Packers, and lost in this whole melodrama is what is best for the team. If he is openly challenging the team and trying to dicate decisions through ESPN soundbites and then he says he is only coming back for one more year, is it maybe time to go into a full blown rebuild. Favre is a top 5 QB who can play with anyone without a doubt. I think he'd regret leaving early (too early) but what good is one year realy going to do. If the Packers get to 8-8 this year it will be an achievement. 2007 could be the step up year, but I don't see it this year.
ch: I spoke with coach Mike McCarthy on Friday. He looked me straight in the eye and assured me that nothing Brett Favre has done, or has said, has in any way impeded or compromised his ability to implement a new beginning over there. He also said he needs to have Favre here and ready to go in time for the first minicamp in early May. THAT is when Favre's absence, or indecision, will be a problem for the team. NOT BEFORE. Look, if the head coach is OK with what's happening, why should the media or fans get in an uproar. If Favre doesn't have an answer for the Packers in time for the first minicamp, and McCarthy decides to proceed without him, I will be the first to commend the team. However, until that happens, I wouldn't be too quick to judge Favre. It is amazing to me how quickly some fans are willing to believe any BS they get spoon fed by national talk radio, and how quick they are to want to prove that Favre isn't the man they thought he was because of a former teammate's comments. What does Mark Chmura know about the situation? Has he talked with McCarthy? Or GM Ted Thompson for that matter? Or is he just upset because he and Favre haven't remained close through the years? Let this thing play out. If he doesn't decide in time for the mini-camp, it's time to move on without him. It's really that simple.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard , Oshkosh, WI: The TE makes sense but, whatabout our Defense? Wouldn't AJ Hawk also be a good pick?
ch: The only way the Packers could justify selecting AJ Hawk is if they trade down several spots in order to acquire more picks and then get him. He's a great value at the No. 8, 9 or 10 pick. At No. 5? Uh-uh. Davis is a truly special athlete that can impact a game immediately. Hawk, while a very good tight end, isn't special in any of the measurables. He might be a very, very good NFL linebacker for years. But if he and Davis both fulfill their potential, Davis could be a TE that changes an offense's ability to succeed. He could be one of the best to play the position. That will never be the case with Hawk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gene, chicago: Chris, this is a duplicate of a question submitted yesterday.Do you think #4 is primarily concerned about getting some decent centers and guards to prevent last year's fiascoes in pass protection, and that is what he is "holding out" for? If so, we can definitely understand.
ch: You have hit the nail on the head. He is willing to come back for one more season, but he doesn't have much interest in getting the hell beaten out of him ala the December game at Chicago. Right now, depending on how much you trust that McCarthy and Jagodzinski's zone blocking scheme and running game are going to be effective, Favre probably does have cause for concern. Right now, GM Ted Thompson has replaced a former but fading Pro Bowl center (Mike Flanagan) and guard (Marco Rivera) with a seventh-round pick (Scott Wells) and a rookie (Will Whitticker). He also replaced a Top 5 guard in Mike Wahle with, well, nothing of any consequence. I think I see why Favre is concerned about that area of the team. And that, I believe, is the No. 1 reason for the wait-and-see approach. Stay tuned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Fuller, Edmond: Hey Chris, not sure if yesterday's questions are still in the bank or not, but what's the general consensus you're hearing - from fans, colleagues, and players alike - following Favre's "What are they going to do, cut me?" comment, and then Chmura's comments on Favre? I thought that was a ridiculously stupid comment by Favre, and for someone who has started referring to himself in the third person quite a bit over the last few years, this latest in the "holier than thou" is disappointing because it's starting to cast a shadow over a brilliant career, both on the field, and how he's perceived off the field by both fans & the media.
ch: Patrick, Take a deep breath, relax and recite after me, "It's going to be OK. It's going to be OK." Favre's comment, "What are they going to do, cut me?" wasn't the entire quote. What Favre said was that he wasn't aware of any deadline (because there wasn't one) and that the Packers hadn't told him about a deadline, so if he doesn't decide whether to play or retire, what are they going to do, cut me? The point people are missing is that there WAS NO DEADLINE. Whatever media report from Orlando, Fla., that you read that said there was a deadline was DEAD WRONG. Fans ought to be unhappy about that FACT, not one part of a comment Favre said when asked about a deadline that didn't exist. Please, someone out there, help me understand what I am missing and others are seeing (or in some cases exxaggerating)? I don't get it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie, San Francisco: Hey Chris -- Do you find it strange that Favre & Bus Cook both came out with the "what are they going to do -- cut me (him)?" quote within 24 hours of each other? Followed up by "I'll definitely only play 1 year" assertion from Favre. Seems very orchestrated to me. Honestly, with the bulk of Free Agency having taken place now -- does anyone really think the Packers can do anything dramatically to improve their team on paper the rest of this offseason? I don't think Favre or Cook thinks they can -- which would leave open only the option of cutting or trading #4 if they want to get any value out of him. The current "I'm going to take my ball and go home" threats, I hate to say, sure do sound a lot like the current rhetoric from Javon Walker and his daddy -- or the routine T.O. & Rosenhaus, etc. use annually.
ch: How are Favre's and Walker's situations alike? Walker is a one-time Pro Bowl receiver that threatened to hold out unless the Packers signed him to a lucrative contract extension. Favre is a Hall of Famer who says he wants to see what the team will do before he decides whether to retire or return. There's a key word in there: TEAM. Favre has no desire to come back, if only for one season, and get pounded behind an inferior offensive line. I don't blame him. I wouldn't either. But I am sure Favre believes that if the offensive line can be shored up, and there are still a free agent or two (especially at center) that could help immensely, he'd be more inclined to return. You know why? Because he still believes that if he has the time to throw, and they get can a running game going, they can win a lot of games. How does Favre's desire to have a NFL-caliber offensive line so the team has a chance to win games and he doesn't get sawed in half equate to a young receiver wanting to get paid big-time while there's still two years on his current deal? Again, discuss, and then explain. I'm curious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gene, chicago: Let's say that the Packers are sitting at the fifth pick, Bush, Leinart, Mario, and Ferguson being off the board. The Cardinals, at #10, want to trade up to #5. What would be a fair offer?
ch: The NFL has a formula, or a chart, if you will, that assigns a point value to each draft pick. I don't have the chart with me. Mike Sherman borrowed it two years ago, and I haven't seen it since. At any rate, you can look at past examples of trades to get a ballpark idea. If it's me, and since you asked, I'd hear what Arizona offered and if it wasn't their 10th pick plus a strong interior offensive lineman and/or a second-round pick, I'd draft Vernon Davis and be quite happy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mad Dog, Texas: Chris, From your observation of Sherman and McCarthy, who inspires more confidence in you. I never thought Sherman could think on his feet so to speak. If something happened off script, it seemed to confuse him. If you had nothing to look at in the past and interviewed McCarthy and Sherman and had to hire one or the other on how they struck you personally, who would you pick and what would the reason be for the decision.
ch: If I am going to decide which to hire, that means I am going to go with the guy that I feel most comfortable with, ala GM Ted Thompson's comments. In Sherman, I would guess you'd get a highly organized, totally committed head coach that could be a demanding son of a gun behind the scenes. I would guess his game preparation would be excellent bordering on maniacal. But I would have to have concerns about his ability to - as you say - think on his feet. I think Sherman's strength was analyzing, and his weakness was a lack of spontaneity, further compounded by indecision at the critical moment. In McCarthy, I get a guy that I could work with. He is personable - but not in a superficial way - and he is a "what you see is what you get" kind of guy. He is motivated, confident and seemingly prepared to run the show as a coach. Of course, there's no way to know that until he has to be on the sideline and in the hotseat on game day. Either man, I believe, would be a good candidate. I just happen to think that McCarthy's philosophy of sticking with what works, relying on the short passing game and being OK with punting and playing defense give him a chance to be really, really good. And I think the players will want to play hard for him, and he has the advantage of not being the same guy that negotiated or had a role in their current contract status. That is big. Furthermore, McCarthy gears everything toward giving the draft picks and first-year players a realistic chance to prove what they can do and make the team. In today's football where young players need to contribute almost right away, I think McCarthy's plan gives the Packers a better chance for long-term success. I just hope three years isn't too short a time for McCarthy to prove himself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim, LA: Did McCarthy give any indications on what they are looking for if they shop Walker?
ch: The Bears' defense. Just kidding. The offers will come for Walker, and they'll be ridiculous, but Thompson might bite if the price is right. I just have no way of knowing what the price might be. It's impossible to guess because the combinations of draft picks and/or current pros is impossible to calculate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powerball, East Texas: Chris- You said you didn't get it on why everyone has some concerns over this Favre deal. First up, Favre did say "what are they going to do cut me?" but he did say it not with an arrogant tone, but it was not the best quote he could have come up with, but Bus Cook was quoted with the same phrase by two other local papers, so it was a line that had been talked about before being made." Secondly Favre wants this total all out commitment from everyone inthe organization, but even from a symbolic standpoint, he doesn't attend mini-camps last year. He doesn't attend Wednesday meeting half the time and just because Sherman okayed it, it doesn't look good. We can talk all day that the 29 picks were not all on Favre and were a product of the players on the field around him, but TWENTY NINE PICKS...come on. TJ Rubley doesn't throw 29 picks and Favre to my knowledge hasn't a single time acknowledged that those 29 picks might have been a contributing factor and perhaps he could have played a little smarter on his part. He wants all these things done to improve the teams chances but if he stepped up and led by example and showed a total dedication to the season, it would have a postive effect. And before anyone says he doesn't need to be in Green Bay getting after it, I'd remind anyone that most of us would work like a dog in any condition at any task for 10 million a year. Those numbers get tossed around pretty casually like they are meaningless, but if I'm paying a person 10 million a year, I'd want to see them working daily with total committment instead of catching glimpses of him on ESPN trying to tell people how to run the team. And if having Favre in Green Bay is just mind boggling insane to expect, aren't there a lot of players for the Packers there right now doing just that. I guess that is what a few people think anyhow. Not saying we have a monopoly on how things should be, but that is one mindset out there.
ch: Favre needs to be here for the first mini-camp practice in May. If he's not, there's a big problem that has to be dealt with. Until then, why all the hand-wringing? Do I think Favre has handled this the best way possible? Obviously not. But that doesn't mean Favre's a bad teammate, or bad for the team, if he isn't in Rock Gullickson's weight room jacking iron next to Kenny Peterson. C'mon. As for what happened in the past, let's just say there's a reason that Mike Sherman isn't the head coach, or A head coach anywhere, for that matter. It's old news. The 29 picks were ridiculous. So was throwing more passes than any team in Packers history. So was abandoning the running game, exposing the QB on the crucial play against Pittsburgh and generally not relying on common sense to try to eke out victories. Favre was frustrated and his play suffered mightily at times because of it. At the same time, he led the NFL in TD passes after six weeks. But eventually he was worn down by the team's unrealistic chance to win each week. That was the first time he'd ever gone through something like that in 15 years. I'm not exxonerating it. He didn't need to go the "I don't give a damn" route at times, but that does help to explain it. He wants an offensive line he can function behind so the Packers have a chance to win and he has a chance to get out alive. Now, in GM Ted Thompson's defense, the off-season isn't over yet, and either you trust Thompson to build a NFL-caliber line or you don't. It's that simple. Right now, Favre is skeptical. Seems to me the fans are, too. Whether it's Favre or Rodgers at QB, the Packers' offensive line, as it stands today, is a longshot to stand up. Does anyone out there disagree?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul, Gardner, MA: Hi Chris, I've seen some GM wannabes pontificating on if Ferguson is available at #5, that the Pack should pick him, put him at RT and move Tausch to RG. Doesn't this go directly against Jagodinski's "smaller, athletic" offensive line beliefs? If Ferguson was available at #5, could we afford to pass him up?
ch: I'd take Davis over D'Brickashaw Ferguson. Tauscher is a really good RT, and Clifton is solid at LT. Why mess with the only two sure things on the offensive line? Plus, nobody knows for sure if Ferguson can play right tackle, and I doubt he'd really want to go there. He is good enough right now to be a strong left tackle, and those guys are among the rarest to find. The Packers aren't drafting the left tackle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don, Dallas: Do you still believe it was the right decision to play all starters to win the last game of the year verses "playing to win" with the young guys who give us a better chance to lose and get the higher draft pick? Packer fans who follow the draft are seeing the "cost" of dropping from #2 to #5 and does anyone really feel good about that last win against...oh yah the subs from Seattle? I'll ask you again down stream if we lose Williams and compare his impact with who ever we end up with at 5.
ch: Yes, I do believe it was the right decision. The only time a team has the right to sit starters is if everything's locked up for the post-season and there's nothing to be gained. Otherwise, you play your best players and try to win. Every season is a season unto itself. OK, so the Packers throw the game, risk damaging their credibility with fans who paid hard-earned money to see the Seattle game, draft Mario Williams and then he tears up his knee beyond repair the next week in a motorcycle accident. Now what? There is no guarantee and nobody can read the future so this is all non-sense and foolishness. The Packers are picking fifth for a lot of reasons, and not all of them are because they won the season-finale a year ago. Move on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jobu, Madison: Chris - I'm not one of the people who think we became a 4-12 team by losing two guards, but how is it possible that, with $25M in space this year, we couldn't afford to keep Wahle?
ch: At the time Wahle's $6 million roster bonus or whatever it was that came due, the Packers didn't have the huge money under the salary cap. In fact, they were right up against it and would've had to cut good players to keep Wahle. This is revisionist history. If the Packers did indeed have the $25 million available at the time, I'm guessing they'd have kept him. They didn't. He left. It's that simple.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill, Saratoga,CA: Chris, I saw you wrote in a chat 2 months ago that Favre should take one month to decide then the team needs to move on. Well, what do you say now? How do you think his indecision impacts what his team thinks about his ability to come back and lead. Is there a division in the locker room between players who felt Favre should have stayed out of Walkers business and think that his current antics are not helping the team? Chris, I know you have a close relationship with Brett, but I think it is time for you to call this one as you see it.
ch: McCarthy said he needs everyone at the first minicamp practice in May. That's good enough for me. His decision - or the deliberation with which it took - won't have any affect on his teammates. Other than that they'll be glad if he decides to come back. Players want to win. He gives them the best chance to do that. I don't know if teammates are upset with Favre because of comments he made about Walker, but I do know that teammates aren't thrilled that Walker is threatening to never play here again - a second straight off-season - if he doesn't get what he wants. Call it as I see it? Walker needs to realize he has even less leverage than he did last year, Favre needs to realize he can't wait forever and that he must decide in time for the first minicamp, and fans need to realize that a majority of the opinions and comments regarding this whole Favre ordeal aren't based upon fact. There never was a deadline. The Packers say Favre's indecision, or whatever you want to call it, isn't impacting the team. At least not yet. So how does the way I see it differ with the way you see it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jobu, Madison: Couldn't they have given Wahle a new contract?
ch: The only way to give him a new contract was to cut him, which they did, before his big roster bonus was due. At that point, Wahle could've resigned with the Packers, or he could've done what he did, which was sign a really lucrative deal with the Carolina Panthers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan, Milwaukee: Is Aaron Rodgers in Green Bay and was he looking better at the end of the season compared to in the beginning?
ch: Rodgers has been in Green Bay and he is working out and getting ready for the season. I believe he and Mike McCarthy have spoken, at least conceptually, about the new offense. As for how he looks, well, he looks great. He's fit, he's eager and he's available.