Cliff Christl

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/includes/news_items/11/548/cliff.jpg

Damn interesting interview with the old man today, well worth a listen. And this is the real thing, not that annoying imposter. It's from The Homer Radio Show.

sound link:
mms://goodkarma.wmod.llnwd.net/a459/o2/WAUK/Cliff_Christl012109.mp3

http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/audio/

[RashanGary]

Interesting. I agree on some points. I disagree on others. I don't think the Packers are as far as he says, but I don't think things are all rosy on defense either.

Offensively, I'd say the Packers could win a championship with darn near what they have. Maybe one stronger OL and I'm OK with the offense.

Defensively, I think they need to be stronger with their front 7 and I think Ted can do it (although betting on SB wins is much tougher than betting against). It's very easy to say "they'll be OK, but not win a championship". 97% of all teams fall under that category each year.

We'll see where it goes. I respect Cliff, but I think he's influenced too much by Ron Wolf and Ron Wolf thinks he's a genius for finding Favre so now Ron's whole belief is that the Packers will have no chance without him. Cliff echos the same sentiment because he's still close to Ron and hears it when they talk. I think Ron is misguided by ego and Cliff misguided by Ron, then readers and listeners are misguided by one mans very large ego passed on through Cliff.

[cpk1994]

Interesting. I agree on some points. I disagree on others. I don't think the Packers are as far as he says, but I don't think things are all rosy on defense either.

Offensively, I'd say the Packers could win a championship with darn near what they have. Maybe one stronger OL and I'm OK with the offense.

Defensively, I think they need to be stronger with their front 7 and I think Ted can do it (although betting on SB wins is much tougher than betting against). It's very easy to say "they'll be OK, but not win a championship". 97% of all teams fall under that category each year.

We'll see where it goes. I respect Cliff, but I think he's influenced too much by Ron Wolf and Ron Wolf thinks he's a genius for finding Favre so now Ron's whole belief is that the Packers will have no chance without him. Cliff echos the same sentiment because he's still close to Ron and hears it when they talk. I think Ron is misguided by ego and Cliff misguided by Ron, then readers and listeners are misguided by one mans very large ego passed on through Cliff.Show me the quote where Ron said the Packers had no chance without Favre. I don't think Ron Wolf would utter one of the dumbest statements ever made by an NFL GM.

[RashanGary]

Ron has said, "you'll miss him when he's gone, just wait" and things like that all of the time.


Just yesterday (or the day before, I forget) Ron was on the Jim Rome Show. He said Favre is still better than most of the QB's out there. Said Rodgers did ok but that he didn't win games and that is all that counts. Huh, tell that to Joe Montana and John Elway when they were on down teams.

He's basically using the only piece of evidence that supports the thought he's been preaching all along, that is Favre is special and without him the Packers will not win and then he disregards all other evidence (like Rodgers great year) by saying, "Rodgers didn't win". Why not bring up the bottom ranked defense there like he brought up the NFLE talent Favre had a couple years ago. He made excuses for Favre with the Packers and Jets, but then puts all blame for the losses on Rodgers. The spell Favre has on people is just astounding.

[Pacopete4]

Ron has said, "you'll miss him when he's gone, just wait" and things like that all of the time.


Just yesterday (or the day before, I forget) Ron was on the Jim Rome Show. He said Favre is still better than most of the QB's out there. Said Rodgers did ok but that he didn't win games and that is all that counts. Huh, tell that to Joe Montana and John Elway when they were on down teams.

He's basically using the only piece of evidence that supports the thought he's been preaching all along, that is Favre is special and without him the Packers will not win and then he disregards all other evidence (like Rodgers great year) by saying, "Rodgers didn't win". Why not bring up the bottom ranked defense there like he brought up the NFLE talent Favre had a couple years ago. He made excuses for Favre with the Packers and Jets, but then puts all blame for the losses on Rodgers. The spell Favre has on people is just astounding.

Maybe Wolf said we will miss him when he's gone because of the type of player he was, not that we wouldn't win again?

Or maybe he's pointing out what a lot of other people have said about Rodgers. Nice little year, didn't show up when he was needed to.

Or maybe he's pointng out the packers didn't win before Brett, and it's already only been one ear and they were 6-10.

Or that wolf/holmgren along with Harlan built the Packers of the 90's which carried into the 2000's and TT just hasn't got the job done(see his 31-33 record and making the post season once in 4 seasons)


There can be many things that attribute to Wolf speaking down at the Packers and I'll listen to him, someone who is proven, over the clowns on these message boards that only have green n gold glasses on...

[Packnut]

Ron has said, "you'll miss him when he's gone, just wait" and things like that all of the time.


Just yesterday (or the day before, I forget) Ron was on the Jim Rome Show. He said Favre is still better than most of the QB's out there. Said Rodgers did ok but that he didn't win games and that is all that counts. Huh, tell that to Joe Montana and John Elway when they were on down teams.

He's basically using the only piece of evidence that supports the thought he's been preaching all along, that is Favre is special and without him the Packers will not win and then he disregards all other evidence (like Rodgers great year) by saying, "Rodgers didn't win". Why not bring up the bottom ranked defense there like he brought up the NFLE talent Favre had a couple years ago. He made excuses for Favre with the Packers and Jets, but then puts all blame for the losses on Rodgers. The spell Favre has on people is just astounding.

Maybe Wolf said we will miss him when he's gone because of the type of player he was, not that we wouldn't win again?

Or maybe he's pointing out what a lot of other people have said about Rodgers. Nice little year, didn't show up when he was needed to.

Or maybe he's pointng out the packers didn't win before Brett, and it's already only been one ear and they were 6-10.

Or that wolf/holmgren along with Harlan built the Packers of the 90's which carried into the 2000's and TT just hasn't got the job done(see his 31-33 record and making the post season once in 4 seasons)


There can be many things that attribute to Wolf speaking down at the Packers and I'll listen to him, someone who is proven, over the clowns on these message boards that only have green n gold glasses on...

The problem in reaching the "clowns" is they view their "opinions" more important than the facts. Some of these guys have so much dis-like built up for Favre, that they are immune to seeing how lame their opinions are. They don't realize that when you argue with opinion and dis-regard facts, you have already lost.

Last season with Favre, we went to the NFC Championship game. This season without him, we did'nt even make the play-offs. That is a FACT that cannot be changed. That is the reality of the situation. Now the"clowns" can make up all the excuses they desire in order to support their opinion, but they cannot change the fact and that angers them. Normal people when presented with a fact that proves their opinion wrong accept it and move on.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Its good to see that retirement has not sweetened-up Cristl. He says Jerry Kramer doesn't deserve to be in hall of fame, the Packers are full of average players, and TT and MM "maybe have some chance" of eventually succeeding.

I think somewhere near the end of the interview, he said Santa Claus is a big fraud. Cliff is my kind of guy.

[Cleft Crusty]

Christl enjoys trotting out the Great Player Theory. According to the GPT, to win in the NFL you need one or two guys that are game changers. Also, according to GPT, there are only a handful of these guys in the NFL - guys like Peyton Manning, Ed Reed, Larry Fitzgerald, Brian Westbrook, and of course, Brett Favre (in his prime and even most of last year). The Packers don't have a guy that fits the GPT - yet (Woodson is borderline GP). Clefty believes that Rodgers could become that guy, but Stubby has to make it happen. For example, when you have a fourth and goal, even if you think you can score on a fullback dive, you still keep the ball in the hands of your best playmaker trying to throw to your best receiver. For a player to become a member of the Great Player Society, the coach has to let him off the leash. You hope that Rodgers will have the knack to make more positive than negative plays. Thompson has to be better at bringing in the strong supporting cast, perhaps finding another GP (when you have the #5 pick you need to get a GP), and Stubby needs to coach Rodgers next year in a manner to help him develop into a GP.

[Pacopete4]

Cleft, my question a if Woodson isn't a game changing cb... Who is?


And Packnut, I couldn't agree more with you.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Last season with Favre, we went to the NFC Championship game. This season without him, we did'nt even make the play-offs. That is a FACT that cannot be changed.


Why stop there? Look at what happened to the economy when FAvre left Green Bay! This is a FACT that cannot be changed.

(But your logic does impress Pacopete, you got that working for you. :D )

[cpk1994]

Ron has said, "you'll miss him when he's gone, just wait" and things like that all of the time.


Just yesterday (or the day before, I forget) Ron was on the Jim Rome Show. He said Favre is still better than most of the QB's out there. Said Rodgers did ok but that he didn't win games and that is all that counts. Huh, tell that to Joe Montana and John Elway when they were on down teams.

He's basically using the only piece of evidence that supports the thought he's been preaching all along, that is Favre is special and without him the Packers will not win and then he disregards all other evidence (like Rodgers great year) by saying, "Rodgers didn't win". Why not bring up the bottom ranked defense there like he brought up the NFLE talent Favre had a couple years ago. He made excuses for Favre with the Packers and Jets, but then puts all blame for the losses on Rodgers. The spell Favre has on people is just astounding.If thats the quote you are putting words in his mouth. Ron Wolf never said that the Packers have no chance without Favre. He could have meant many different other things.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Maybe we win a couple more with Favre, but not a whole lot. Offense was not the reason we lost 10 games. Maybe two or three games could has been won at the end of regulation with Favre, but remember that Favre also needs a pretty good defense to succeed as well. You can't just simply say "Favre is gone and thats why we lost 7 more games."

[Harlan Huckleby]

Maybe we win a couple more with Favre.

Or lose a couple more. Rodgers played as well as Favre, and didn't tank in the end.

[Pacopete4]

Ron has said, "you'll miss him when he's gone, just wait" and things like that all of the time.


Just yesterday (or the day before, I forget) Ron was on the Jim Rome Show. He said Favre is still better than most of the QB's out there. Said Rodgers did ok but that he didn't win games and that is all that counts. Huh, tell that to Joe Montana and John Elway when they were on down teams.

He's basically using the only piece of evidence that supports the thought he's been preaching all along, that is Favre is special and without him the Packers will not win and then he disregards all other evidence (like Rodgers great year) by saying, "Rodgers didn't win". Why not bring up the bottom ranked defense there like he brought up the NFLE talent Favre had a couple years ago. He made excuses for Favre with the Packers and Jets, but then puts all blame for the losses on Rodgers. The spell Favre has on people is just astounding.If thats the quote you are putting words in his mouth. Ron Wolf never said that the Packers have no chance without Favre. He could have meant many different other things.

Holy shit, me and CPK agree on something.. JH your love for TT/Rodgers clouds your judgement on things as bad as me with some Favre thingsk

[Partial]

Ron has said, "you'll miss him when he's gone, just wait" and things like that all of the time.


Just yesterday (or the day before, I forget) Ron was on the Jim Rome Show. He said Favre is still better than most of the QB's out there. Said Rodgers did ok but that he didn't win games and that is all that counts. Huh, tell that to Joe Montana and John Elway when they were on down teams.

He's basically using the only piece of evidence that supports the thought he's been preaching all along, that is Favre is special and without him the Packers will not win and then he disregards all other evidence (like Rodgers great year) by saying, "Rodgers didn't win". Why not bring up the bottom ranked defense there like he brought up the NFLE talent Favre had a couple years ago. He made excuses for Favre with the Packers and Jets, but then puts all blame for the losses on Rodgers. The spell Favre has on people is just astounding.

Are you trying to say claim that you're a more knowledgeable football fan than Ron Wolf? I'm pretty sure Ron Wolf knows exactly what he's talking about.

Fact is Packers never had a down year until 2005 with Favre despite having some teams with vastly less talent than this years' squad. As I have pointed out numerous times, Aaron had nice stats because of the plethora of offensive talent (top 3 receiving corps, top 10 offensive line, solid running game, etc), but he still doesn't know how to use the entire field after 4 years, and as a result the offense was equally vanilla as the defense. He's not that good, yet. He could potentially be, but I'm skeptical.

[mraynrand]

Ron has said, "you'll miss him when he's gone, just wait" and things like that all of the time.


Just yesterday (or the day before, I forget) Ron was on the Jim Rome Show. He said Favre is still better than most of the QB's out there. Said Rodgers did ok but that he didn't win games and that is all that counts. Huh, tell that to Joe Montana and John Elway when they were on down teams.

He's basically using the only piece of evidence that supports the thought he's been preaching all along, that is Favre is special and without him the Packers will not win and then he disregards all other evidence (like Rodgers great year) by saying, "Rodgers didn't win". Why not bring up the bottom ranked defense there like he brought up the NFLE talent Favre had a couple years ago. He made excuses for Favre with the Packers and Jets, but then puts all blame for the losses on Rodgers. The spell Favre has on people is just astounding.

Are you trying to say claim that you're a more knowledgeable football fan than Ron Wolf? I'm pretty sure Ron Wolf knows exactly what he's talking about.

Fact is Packers never had a down year until 2005 with Favre despite having some teams with vastly less talent than this years' squad. As I have pointed out numerous times, Aaron had nice stats because of the plethora of offensive talent (top 3 receiving corps, top 10 offensive line, solid running game, etc), but he still doesn't know how to use the entire field after 4 years, and as a result the offense was equally vanilla as the defense. He's not that good, yet. He could potentially be, but I'm skeptical.

*SIGH* The offense as vanilla as the defense? Four years? Please. Rodgers was fine for a guy starting his first year. How much he'll improve is up for debate, but it was a very good first year behind center.

[Waldo]

Christl enjoys trotting out the Great Player Theory. According to the GPT, to win in the NFL you need one or two guys that are game changers. Also, according to GPT, there are only a handful of these guys in the NFL - guys like Peyton Manning, Ed Reed, Larry Fitzgerald, Brian Westbrook, and of course, Brett Favre (in his prime and even most of last year). The Packers don't have a guy that fits the GPT - yet (Woodson is borderline GP). Clefty believes that Rodgers could become that guy, but Stubby has to make it happen. For example, when you have a fourth and goal, even if you think you can score on a fullback dive, you still keep the ball in the hands of your best playmaker trying to throw to your best receiver. For a player to become a member of the Great Player Society, the coach has to let him off the leash. You hope that Rodgers will have the knack to make more positive than negative plays. Thompson has to be better at bringing in the strong supporting cast, perhaps finding another GP (when you have the #5 pick you need to get a GP), and Stubby needs to coach Rodgers next year in a manner to help him develop into a GP.

The big problem with the GPT is the circular logic contained therein. Great players are created through accomplishment. You can look after the fact and conclude that success resulted from the great players, but it was that success (or previous) that created that great player. Prior to joining the great player society they may in fact be great players in waiting that lack the opportunity to produce the success necessary to join the great player society. One cannot conclude that the team lacks great players if it has not found success, as it is only after that success has been found that one reaches the conclusion that it was the result of the play of great players.

There is not point in complaining that the team lacks the great players to succeed. Once the team succeeds it is the analysis after the fact that shows that in fact the necessary great players were in place, they just had not yet emerged into the greatness that comes with success.

[Cleft Crusty]

Christl enjoys trotting out the Great Player Theory. According to the GPT, to win in the NFL you need one or two guys that are game changers. Also, according to GPT, there are only a handful of these guys in the NFL - guys like Peyton Manning, Ed Reed, Larry Fitzgerald, Brian Westbrook, and of course, Brett Favre (in his prime and even most of last year). The Packers don't have a guy that fits the GPT - yet (Woodson is borderline GP). Clefty believes that Rodgers could become that guy, but Stubby has to make it happen. For example, when you have a fourth and goal, even if you think you can score on a fullback dive, you still keep the ball in the hands of your best playmaker trying to throw to your best receiver. For a player to become a member of the Great Player Society, the coach has to let him off the leash. You hope that Rodgers will have the knack to make more positive than negative plays. Thompson has to be better at bringing in the strong supporting cast, perhaps finding another GP (when you have the #5 pick you need to get a GP), and Stubby needs to coach Rodgers next year in a manner to help him develop into a GP.

The big problem with the GPT is the circular logic contained therein. Great players are created through accomplishment. You can look after the fact and conclude that success resulted from the great players, but it was that success (or previous) that created that great player. Prior to joining the great player society they may in fact be great players in waiting that lack the opportunity to produce the success necessary to join the great player society. One cannot conclude that the team lacks great players if it has not found success, as it is only after that success has been found that one reaches the conclusion that it was the result of the play of great players.

There is not point in complaining that the team lacks the great players to succeed. Once the team succeeds it is the analysis after the fact that shows that in fact the necessary great players were in place, they just had not yet emerged into the greatness that comes with success.

To a certain extent, I would agree. but consider this: Often great players are easily recognized on bad or average teams, such as James Lofton, Walter Payton. If a team must achieve great success to recognize the great player, then it is more than likely that that player wasn't actually one of the handful of great players, rather he was a very good player that looked great on a complete team. Brett Favre stood out as a great player on average/above average Packer teams. Think about some of the members of the 1960s Packers, 1970s Steelers and 1980s 49ers or 1990s Cowboys for example, who were considered great but only because they played on a complete squad. Conversely, a great player can be made to look terrible if playing on an outstandingly bad squad, like Steve Young playing for the Buccaneers. It's not a simple formula or exact science.

[cpk1994]

Its good to see that retirement has not sweetened-up Cristl. He says Jerry Kramer doesn't deserve to be in hall of fame, the Packers are full of average players, and TT and MM "maybe have some chance" of eventually succeeding.

I think somewhere near the end of the interview, he said Santa Claus is a big fraud. Cliff is my kind of guy.It seems that Cliff has some sort of personal problem with TT. He did everything but outright rip the drafting of Rodgers, wrote a hit peice on TT in regards to the signing of Koren Robinson, the BS he wrote on the Favre saga, and now this BS. I am really curious what Cliff's problem is with Ted and Mike.

[Waldo]

Christl enjoys trotting out the Great Player Theory. According to the GPT, to win in the NFL you need one or two guys that are game changers. Also, according to GPT, there are only a handful of these guys in the NFL - guys like Peyton Manning, Ed Reed, Larry Fitzgerald, Brian Westbrook, and of course, Brett Favre (in his prime and even most of last year). The Packers don't have a guy that fits the GPT - yet (Woodson is borderline GP). Clefty believes that Rodgers could become that guy, but Stubby has to make it happen. For example, when you have a fourth and goal, even if you think you can score on a fullback dive, you still keep the ball in the hands of your best playmaker trying to throw to your best receiver. For a player to become a member of the Great Player Society, the coach has to let him off the leash. You hope that Rodgers will have the knack to make more positive than negative plays. Thompson has to be better at bringing in the strong supporting cast, perhaps finding another GP (when you have the #5 pick you need to get a GP), and Stubby needs to coach Rodgers next year in a manner to help him develop into a GP.

The big problem with the GPT is the circular logic contained therein. Great players are created through accomplishment. You can look after the fact and conclude that success resulted from the great players, but it was that success (or previous) that created that great player. Prior to joining the great player society they may in fact be great players in waiting that lack the opportunity to produce the success necessary to join the great player society. One cannot conclude that the team lacks great players if it has not found success, as it is only after that success has been found that one reaches the conclusion that it was the result of the play of great players.

There is not point in complaining that the team lacks the great players to succeed. Once the team succeeds it is the analysis after the fact that shows that in fact the necessary great players were in place, they just had not yet emerged into the greatness that comes with success.

To a certain extent, I would agree. but consider this: Often great players are easily recognized on bad or average teams, such as James Lofton, Walter Payton. If a team must achieve great success to recognize the great player, then it is more than likely that that player wasn't actually one of the handful of great players, rather he was a very good player that looked great on a complete team. Brett Favre stood out as a great player on average/above average Packer teams. Think about some of the members of the 1960s Packers, 1970s Steelers and 1980s 49ers or 1990s Cowboys for example, who were considered great but only because they played on a complete squad. Conversely, a great player can be made to look terrible if playing on an outstandingly bad squad, like Steve Young playing for the Buccaneers. It's not a simple formula or exact science.

But they had in fact achieved individual success during bad seasons.

For example, would Jennings be a member of the great person society if the ball was thrown his way 50 more times (roughly how many more times the ball went to Marshall or Andre), or 70-80 more times (roughly how much it was thrown to Sterling/Rice in their heyday). Though one would expect diminishing returns for the additional targets, it stands to reason though given double the opportunities, Jennings, already near tops in TD's and yards, would in fact be top of the list, earning a pro bowl invite, an all pro selection, and membership into the great player society. Jennings isn't standing in his own way to earning his place, Driver is.

Aaron is roughly similar. If Crosby comes through on both late game misses, Steve Smith doesn't catch one of those bombs, Moll doesn't draw a phantom hold that wipes out a 20 yard run, setting up first and goal (well within FG range and the an extra 3 downs to take the clock into seconds before kicking). Those 4 things occur (none have any relation to Aaron), he is 10-6 as a starter and credited with 4 4th quarter comeback wins. The D stops Jax from running the ball down our throats in the final minutes and gets a stop, tack on another comeback win. With 4-5 4th quarter comeback wins and his statistical success, Aaron is now not only a strong pro bowl and all pro candidate, he is also a strong MVP candidate (he did statistically outplay Manning), thus earning his berth into the great player society. Aaron is not preventing himself from joining the club, it is in fact the pitiful performance of his teammates in other phases of the game that are robbing him of that opportunity.

[RashanGary]

I am firmly in Teds corner. I think he's doing a great job from where we started to where we are. I think we'll continue to take steps and be on the door steps many times over the next 10 years. I think Ted will have us in the playoffs more than half the years he's here, starting with next year.

My opinion is out there. I don't hear too many others using past patterns to predict the future here. Anyone who wants to disagree with me, fine. Let's get it all laid out and we'll see who is right at the end. I'm always more than happy to put my opinion out there and much more often than not, it's right and it's not just right by way of predicting the obvious. I'm out on limbs with a whole lot of the things I say.

[vince]

But they had in fact achieved individual success during bad seasons.

For example, would Jennings be a member of the great person society if the ball was thrown his way 50 more times (roughly how many more times the ball went to Marshall or Andre), or 70-80 more times (roughly how much it was thrown to Sterling/Rice in their heyday). Though one would expect diminishing returns for the additional targets, it stands to reason though given double the opportunities, Jennings, already near tops in TD's and yards, would in fact be top of the list, earning a pro bowl invite, an all pro selection, and membership into the great player society. Jennings isn't standing in his own way to earning his place, Driver is.

Aaron is roughly similar. If Crosby comes through on both late game misses, Steve Smith doesn't catch one of those bombs, Moll doesn't draw a phantom hold that wipes out a 20 yard run, setting up first and goal (well within FG range and the an extra 3 downs to take the clock into seconds before kicking). Those 4 things occur (none have any relation to Aaron), he is 10-6 as a starter and credited with 4 4th quarter comeback wins. The D stops Jax from running the ball down our throats in the final minutes and gets a stop, tack on another comeback win. With 4-5 4th quarter comeback wins and his statistical success, Aaron is now not only a strong pro bowl and all pro candidate, he is also a strong MVP candidate (he did statistically outplay Manning), thus earning his berth into the great player society. Aaron is not preventing himself from joining the club, it is in fact the pitiful performance of his teammates in other phases of the game that are robbing him of that opportunity.
That post earns the patented Bretsky claps.
:bclap: :bclap: :bclap: :bclap:
Well said Waldo. This is the epitome of a team game no matter who insists on oversimplifying it.

[Cleft Crusty]

Good points about Rodgers, Waldo. Accepting what you say as true, if the Packers squad around Rodgers improves - then those things out of his control should even out and Rodgers will likely attain GP status. I liken Rodgers to Montana actually. he doesn't have a physical skill set that overwhelms you, but it's a very good skill set and he does so many things very well. I assume he will progress to seeing the whole field and to be much faster in pre-snap reads. The sky is the limit for Rodgers, so long as the surrounding team doesn't go in the tank.

[RashanGary]

Nice post, Waldo.

[bobblehead]

Christl enjoys trotting out the Great Player Theory. According to the GPT, to win in the NFL you need one or two guys that are game changers. Also, according to GPT, there are only a handful of these guys in the NFL - guys like Peyton Manning, Ed Reed, Larry Fitzgerald, Brian Westbrook, and of course, Brett Favre (in his prime and even most of last year). The Packers don't have a guy that fits the GPT - yet (Woodson is borderline GP). Clefty believes that Rodgers could become that guy, but Stubby has to make it happen. For example, when you have a fourth and goal, even if you think you can score on a fullback dive, you still keep the ball in the hands of your best playmaker trying to throw to your best receiver. For a player to become a member of the Great Player Society, the coach has to let him off the leash. You hope that Rodgers will have the knack to make more positive than negative plays. Thompson has to be better at bringing in the strong supporting cast, perhaps finding another GP (when you have the #5 pick you need to get a GP), and Stubby needs to coach Rodgers next year in a manner to help him develop into a GP.

The big problem with the GPT is the circular logic contained therein. Great players are created through accomplishment. You can look after the fact and conclude that success resulted from the great players, but it was that success (or previous) that created that great player. Prior to joining the great player society they may in fact be great players in waiting that lack the opportunity to produce the success necessary to join the great player society. One cannot conclude that the team lacks great players if it has not found success, as it is only after that success has been found that one reaches the conclusion that it was the result of the play of great players.

There is not point in complaining that the team lacks the great players to succeed. Once the team succeeds it is the analysis after the fact that shows that in fact the necessary great players were in place, they just had not yet emerged into the greatness that comes with success.

To a certain extent, I would agree. but consider this: Often great players are easily recognized on bad or average teams, such as James Lofton, Walter Payton. If a team must achieve great success to recognize the great player, then it is more than likely that that player wasn't actually one of the handful of great players, rather he was a very good player that looked great on a complete team. Brett Favre stood out as a great player on average/above average Packer teams. Think about some of the members of the 1960s Packers, 1970s Steelers and 1980s 49ers or 1990s Cowboys for example, who were considered great but only because they played on a complete squad. Conversely, a great player can be made to look terrible if playing on an outstandingly bad squad, like Steve Young playing for the Buccaneers. It's not a simple formula or exact science.

But they had in fact achieved individual success during bad seasons.

For example, would Jennings be a member of the great person society if the ball was thrown his way 50 more times (roughly how many more times the ball went to Marshall or Andre), or 70-80 more times (roughly how much it was thrown to Sterling/Rice in their heyday). Though one would expect diminishing returns for the additional targets, it stands to reason though given double the opportunities, Jennings, already near tops in TD's and yards, would in fact be top of the list, earning a pro bowl invite, an all pro selection, and membership into the great player society. Jennings isn't standing in his own way to earning his place, Driver is.

Aaron is roughly similar. If Crosby comes through on both late game misses, Steve Smith doesn't catch one of those bombs, Moll doesn't draw a phantom hold that wipes out a 20 yard run, setting up first and goal (well within FG range and the an extra 3 downs to take the clock into seconds before kicking). Those 4 things occur (none have any relation to Aaron), he is 10-6 as a starter and credited with 4 4th quarter comeback wins. The D stops Jax from running the ball down our throats in the final minutes and gets a stop, tack on another comeback win. With 4-5 4th quarter comeback wins and his statistical success, Aaron is now not only a strong pro bowl and all pro candidate, he is also a strong MVP candidate (he did statistically outplay Manning), thus earning his berth into the great player society. Aaron is not preventing himself from joining the club, it is in fact the pitiful performance of his teammates in other phases of the game that are robbing him of that opportunity.

I tried arguing this with the real cliff but he would never hear of it. He pointed out what MVP Jason Taylor did to rookie first start at LT Daryn College as evidence of a great player. When I pointed out the Aaron Kampman did the identical thing to a normal starter in the saints game but the team lost he didn't reply to that email.

What waldo said is true. If the team thrives next year and wins 12 games you will hear certain guys referred to as game changers. A chain is as srong as its weakest link, and if you line up a slouch liike montgomery its a huge hole in an otherwise talented defense. How can AK look like a great player when teams are running over monty??

[Bossman641]

Christl enjoys trotting out the Great Player Theory. According to the GPT, to win in the NFL you need one or two guys that are game changers. Also, according to GPT, there are only a handful of these guys in the NFL - guys like Peyton Manning, Ed Reed, Larry Fitzgerald, Brian Westbrook, and of course, Brett Favre (in his prime and even most of last year). The Packers don't have a guy that fits the GPT - yet (Woodson is borderline GP). Clefty believes that Rodgers could become that guy, but Stubby has to make it happen. For example, when you have a fourth and goal, even if you think you can score on a fullback dive, you still keep the ball in the hands of your best playmaker trying to throw to your best receiver. For a player to become a member of the Great Player Society, the coach has to let him off the leash. You hope that Rodgers will have the knack to make more positive than negative plays. Thompson has to be better at bringing in the strong supporting cast, perhaps finding another GP (when you have the #5 pick you need to get a GP), and Stubby needs to coach Rodgers next year in a manner to help him develop into a GP.

The big problem with the GPT is the circular logic contained therein. Great players are created through accomplishment. You can look after the fact and conclude that success resulted from the great players, but it was that success (or previous) that created that great player. Prior to joining the great player society they may in fact be great players in waiting that lack the opportunity to produce the success necessary to join the great player society. One cannot conclude that the team lacks great players if it has not found success, as it is only after that success has been found that one reaches the conclusion that it was the result of the play of great players.

There is not point in complaining that the team lacks the great players to succeed. Once the team succeeds it is the analysis after the fact that shows that in fact the necessary great players were in place, they just had not yet emerged into the greatness that comes with success.

To a certain extent, I would agree. but consider this: Often great players are easily recognized on bad or average teams, such as James Lofton, Walter Payton. If a team must achieve great success to recognize the great player, then it is more than likely that that player wasn't actually one of the handful of great players, rather he was a very good player that looked great on a complete team. Brett Favre stood out as a great player on average/above average Packer teams. Think about some of the members of the 1960s Packers, 1970s Steelers and 1980s 49ers or 1990s Cowboys for example, who were considered great but only because they played on a complete squad. Conversely, a great player can be made to look terrible if playing on an outstandingly bad squad, like Steve Young playing for the Buccaneers. It's not a simple formula or exact science.

But they had in fact achieved individual success during bad seasons.

For example, would Jennings be a member of the great person society if the ball was thrown his way 50 more times (roughly how many more times the ball went to Marshall or Andre), or 70-80 more times (roughly how much it was thrown to Sterling/Rice in their heyday). Though one would expect diminishing returns for the additional targets, it stands to reason though given double the opportunities, Jennings, already near tops in TD's and yards, would in fact be top of the list, earning a pro bowl invite, an all pro selection, and membership into the great player society. Jennings isn't standing in his own way to earning his place, Driver is.

Aaron is roughly similar. If Crosby comes through on both late game misses, Steve Smith doesn't catch one of those bombs, Moll doesn't draw a phantom hold that wipes out a 20 yard run, setting up first and goal (well within FG range and the an extra 3 downs to take the clock into seconds before kicking). Those 4 things occur (none have any relation to Aaron), he is 10-6 as a starter and credited with 4 4th quarter comeback wins. The D stops Jax from running the ball down our throats in the final minutes and gets a stop, tack on another comeback win. With 4-5 4th quarter comeback wins and his statistical success, Aaron is now not only a strong pro bowl and all pro candidate, he is also a strong MVP candidate (he did statistically outplay Manning), thus earning his berth into the great player society. Aaron is not preventing himself from joining the club, it is in fact the pitiful performance of his teammates in other phases of the game that are robbing him of that opportunity.

I think this post should be required reading for Pacopete and Packnut prior to them posting their "we were in the championship game last year and this year we didn't even make the playoffs. It's all cause we lost Favre and Rodger sucks" posts.

[Pacopete4]

I think this post should be required reading for Pacopete and Packnut prior to them posting their "we were in the championship game last year and this year we didn't even make the playoffs. It's all cause we lost Favre and Rodger sucks" posts.



I think Arod, MM, TT should all prove themselves before making excuses for them... cuz none of the 3 have done shit in this league well enough, long enough for me to give a rats behind about what coulda, shoulda, woulda happened IF... all a bunch of BS if you ask me

[cpk1994]

I think this post should be required reading for Pacopete and Packnut prior to them posting their "we were in the championship game last year and this year we didn't even make the playoffs. It's all cause we lost Favre and Rodger sucks" posts.



I think Arod, MM, TT should all prove themselves before making excuses for them... cuz none of the 3 have done shit in this league well enough, long enough for me to give a rats behind about what coulda, shoulda, woulda happened IF... all a bunch of BS if you ask meKind of ironic coming from someone who was slinging the "couda shouda wouda happened IF" in regards to Favre all season.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Also, according to GPT, there are only a handful of these guys in the NFL - guys like Peyton Manning, Ed Reed, Larry Fitzgerald, Brian Westbrook, and of course, Brett Favre (in his prime and even most of last year). The Packers don't have a guy that fits the GPT - yet (Woodson is borderline GP).

I'll make just the tiniest of quibbles with the king of crust: Woodson is a great player. HE's as good as Troy Polamolu or Leroy Butler. He would be just as famous if he was surrounded by top talent like those guys were/are in their prime.