Bretsky
09-21-2006, 12:54 AM
Cliff answered your questions as the 0-2 Packers get ready to head to 0-2 Detroit.
Q: Joe Mitchell of Madison - Hey Cliff, thanks for all the chats. Despite the idiocy at times, I learn far more from these discussions than from anything else. I have a simple yet complicated question. What signs can we look for as fans to know a corner has been turned? When will we know the ship has stopped taking on water? Is it just as simple as counting playmakers? Maybe count the number of drafted players in their 3rd or 4th year?
A: Cliff Christl - Joe, you posted the first question, we'll start with you. It's a good question and I don't know if there's a right or simple answer. Thinking back to '92, as I recall, wasn't it fairly obvious that Favre was somebody special soon after he started playing and winning games? So much hinges on the quarterback, I'd say that's the first position to monitor. The Packers aren't going anywhere soon if Rodgers isn't the guy, assuming that Favre is in his last year or second last year. Watch for the progress of other players, as well. For example, they kept three draft choices in the offensive line this year. If by next year or the year after, all three are solid players that obviously will be good sign. After all, it may be sooner than later that the Packers will have to replace Clifton and Tauscher. So if just one of their current young offensive linemen develops into a player, it's going to take time to fill the other holes across the line. If three do, the line could be pretty good pretty quick. But probably the most important beside the quarterback situation will be monitoring the development of the Packers' No. 1 draft picks. If they're busts, the process is going to take longer. If they're simply good players that will help, but it might not result in a quick turn-around. If they're special players, guys who make plays and dominate games, it could be a fast turnaround. Then filling in the other positions will be much easier. But, in the end, I think the toughest challenge for Ted Thompson will be replacing Favre. It can take forever to replace a legend. And until they do, they're not going to win any Super Bowls.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Todd of Upper Michigan - Everybody seems to think the Packers would be better off trading Favre or at least sitting him and letting Rodgers have his shot. As far as revenue and marketability for the Packers wouldn't this be a big mistake? If we had no Brett do you really think we'd get 2 Monday night games? Doesn't he bring in millions in revenue for the Pack just by being on the team?
A: Cliff Christl - No question. He has been the face of the franchise. If he wasn't on the team, the Packers wouldn't be on national TV. He gets them more exposure than they deserve based on their recent play. But there's no room for sentiment in the NFL. If the player ready to take his place is better, they need to make the switch. But at this point, Rodgers isn't better. Would it help the team in the long run to trade Favre? Maybe if they could get a high draft pick in return. But maybe that's an unrealistic expectation. Would the Packers benefit by playing Rodgers now? I'm not convinced of that. I'm not sure Rodgers would benefit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Hoot of Toivola MI - Hi cliff while driving to the game on Sunday I caught the tail end of your radio gig. Do you always do the pre-game? Do you enjoy it? I would have thought you to be to be to honest to put on live radio.
A: Cliff Christl - They rotate their guests. It's the second time I've done it this year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bob of San Antonio - Read your recent article on What packers should watch for. Do you ever write anything positive about the Pack, if so please refer me to it so I can frame it.
A: Cliff Christl - If you want a steady diet of positive, I'd recommend reading the Packers' official website. They probably make 0-2, losing at home to a team that was 3-13 last year, all that stuff sound good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Crazy Dave of Lunatic Fringe, WI - Cliff, It's time to fire up the engines on the "Fire Ted Thompson" bandwagon. The guy is a one trick pony, with no other plan for building a team than trading down to add picks in the hopes that he hits the jackpot on a couple. If they suck bad enough, throw in couple top 5's. That's no way to build a team in a league as competitive as the NFL, where every other team uses every means available to improve themselves. How about this fact if your still not convinced. The guy had 12 draft picks, including a top 5, plus $20 Million in cap room this offseason and still puts a squad on the field that's clearly worse than last year. In two years, he's had 23 picks and all that money and still can't find a guard who's even close to an adequate starter in the NFL, in front of a $10 Mil HOF QB. It's like leaving a pile of cash in your house and not locking the door. What justification can you possibly give for continuing to let this no talent stick in the mud run one of the most storied franchises in sports history?
A: Cliff Christl - He tackled a big challenge. He inherited a descending team and teams that fall into the category are difficult to turn around. I agree with his philosophy about building through the draft. And it will take time. But, you're right, you can't build a winning team exclusively through the draft. You need to uncover street free agents, pay for some quality unrestricted free agents, make trades, etc. I think he's done all that. Not many of the players that he has acquired are paying off. But that, too, takes time. For example, the three rookie offensive linemen might need three, four years to develop, just as Mike Wahle did. I think Thompson deserves more patience than you're willing to give him. Plus, you can't run a franchise looking for scapegoats every year. You need to maintain some stability at least short term.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Doug Hauseman of Poughkeepsie, NY - Cliff, Appreciate your candor. Trading Favre makes no sense to me. We would get very little for him, certainly not higher than a 3rd or 4th, which means we run a real risk of getting absolutely nothing. From Mgmt perspective, Favre gives the Packers the ONLY chance to win. How does Mgmt survive an 0-16 season. Seems to me they'd be trading their only chance to keep their jobs.
A: Cliff Christl - You might be right. Without Favre, the Packers might be a zip-and-16 team. He, at least, gives them a fighting chance. I think last off-season, the Packers might have found a team willing to give up a likely late No. 1 or No. 2 pick for Favre. That's why I advocated trading him then. Now, it's possible that he wouldn't bring any more than a third or fourth. So I agree with you. It probably doesn't make much sense to trade him at this point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Steve Long of Solon Springs, Wi - Is ted thompson a smart man with some hidden agenda he is playing out that we don't see? Is he trying to just collect young bodies until he thinks he has enough talent to make a run for it? Or is he just throwing things at the wall right now to see what sticks? i.e. The Gado trade seemed like he should have known that situation before camp was over, and the signing of Koren Robinson is questionable.
A: Cliff Christl - He wasn't around the league as long as Wolf. I think Wolf's background better prepared him for the job. And I don't think Thompson is as savvy as Wolf. But I don't think he's in over his head, either. He works hard. He's surrounded by some good people. He knows football. Again, the Packers won for so long, it figured that at some point, they'd crash and burn. And that seems to be what has happened here. Under the circumstances, there are no quick fixes. Could Thompson have done some things to keep the Packers more competitive? Sure. But would they have just been buying time? I think so. I think this team had to be rebuilt from the ground up and I think the process has just begun.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: tim of orange - Collins and Marquand both look slow. Collins looks overweight. Do you think the Packers would consider putting Woodson at safety?
A: Cliff Christl - I agree that Manuel looks slow. I don't think Collins is slow. He just doesn't look good in one-on-one coverage. But that may be the fault of the coaches more than Collins. I don't think he practiced all summer at a cover position in the nickel or dime. At least, I don't recall seeing him do it. I think it's a mistake to put a young player in a situation that he hasn't been properly prepared to handle. His biggest problem has been playing the ball, not keeping up with receivers. What about Woodson at safety? I know some think that might be his best position now. And maybe so. But he's a finesse player. He's not a Ronnie Lott type corner. Plus, who do the Packers play at corner in his place?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Rich of Whitefish Bay - I don't get it...NFL teams come and NFL teams go... Truth be told we have to go through this pain of last season, this season and probably next season too. Will it hurt - Yes. Will we cringe and want to turn off the TV by the time the 4th quarter starts -Yes. Just the way it is, so why are people so desperate now? Why go after Favre???? Okay so they are 1-7 in the past comeback attempts...duh look who is around him. It is time to just enjoy watching Brett a few more times...enjoy watching his joy for the game. The fact is all this pressure to speed this process up will cause problems that will circumvent the process to build another team that wins the super bowl in 4-5 years and instead create a team that competes weakly for the playoffs to lose in the first round for years and years to come. Its time to just sit back and let the team rebuild...and these poll questions about sitting Farve only make things worse by getting the fan base despondent.... It might sell newspapers and keep talk radio lines lit up...but it doesn't help win another super bowl soon..... Thanks for letting me rant.
A: Cliff Christl - You make some good points and you ranted without leveling personal attacks. At least, you're not part of the lynch mob. I wouldn't argue with your take on this at all. But it's not my job or the media's job to make it easier for the Packers to rebuild. That's up to them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John H of Sheridan, WY - Why doesn't the Pack trade Ahmad Carroll before he loses all of his value? He's already proven to be a liability more than an asset to the team. For a man like Ted Thompson who seems to have no hesitation to cut a subpar player... I can't understand why Carroll is still around and being targeted by the opposing teams.
A: Cliff Christl - I don't think he has much trade value and I still think there's a possibility he could develop into a good corner. I wouldn't bet anything on it. But he has made small progress each year. And except for two plays, he played well Sunday, both on special teams and defense. He made some plays against Reggie Bush. Right now, Carroll has more value to the Packers than he does on the trade market. That's typical of most players. That's why you don't see many trades.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Kenny Jay of Reno - Cliff, My thoughts. Everyone's blaming Mike Sherman or Ted Thompson for the mess we're in right now. I agree they are responsible to a point, but I place the larger part of the blame on Ron Wolf. Wolf was definitely the savior of this franchise in the early 90's. Without him we never would have had Favre, Holmgren or a Super Bowl. I salute him. On the flip side, he also destroyed our immediate future. He let one of the best football coaches get away in Mike Holmgren. With Holmgren and a Brett Favre near his prime, I think the Packers could have gotten back into the Super Bowl at least one more time. I understand that Holmgren wanted to be a GM and call all of the shots, and I respect that. I was probably one of the few Packer fans that haven’t held a grudge against him for leaving. Frankly, anyone would have jumped on the offer he got from Seattle. You've written before, and Wolf has stated on more than one occasion that he had no idea he would burn out and leave after only one year with Mike Sherman. Maybe that's true, I don't know. Part of me thinks Wolf wanted this franchise to take a nose dive after him. It only makes his legacy brighter, I hope I'm not being too cynical. Anyways, hind sight is always wonderful. I just wish Wolf would have stepped aside, and let Holmgrem take over the Packers in 1998, I think things would have been quite a bit different. Thanks for listening Dr. Christl, we're all are going to need a lot of therapy the next few years.
A: Cliff Christl - I think you're being too cynical about Wolf. I don't think you can fault him. And if it wasn't for him, who knows? The Packers might be on their last legs and headed for Los Angeles. So I'd count your blessings that he came along when he did.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Digger of Andover - Cliff, On April 17 you indeed suggested the Packers should trade Favre. You hypothesized at the time they could get a number one or perhaps a number 2 (and why not-the Vikings got a number 2 for Culpepper). What is the lowest pick you'd take for him today if you were GM? Could the Packers still get a number 3 for him right now? Would you take it? Would anyone offer? C'mon Cliffy let's get some trade rumors started.
A: Cliff Christl - Good question. I don't think I'd trade him for a third. What are you really getting in exchange for the flak your going to take for being so heartless?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Evan Argall of Cedarburg - Nick Collins has good size, great speed, is tough and hits hard. That being said, his deficiencies in coverage have been startling and obvious, whether it be his blown coverages last week or his seeming inability to make an interception when the opportunity is presented. Seeing that Manuel is a marginal started at best, I think the Packers should move Collins to Strong Safety as soon as they can. I am pretty sure there is no cover safety on the roster (boy, Darren Sharper would look pretty good back there) but given Collins skill set and Manuel's ineptitude, that move should be on Ted Thompson's mind this season and going into next off season. Your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - I'm not a coach, but my understanding is that their safeties are still pretty much interchangeable, just as they were in the Donatell-Slowik scheme. So I don't think a position change is the solution. Collins is a young player. You live with the growing pains for now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Joey of San Antonio - I know Ron Wolf made some mistakes, but have you seen some red flags in TT's reign that make you wonder if the Pack is headed in the right direction? Red flag for me was the contract offered to a pedestrian TE in Franks, and letting go of Wahle who was just entering the prime of his career.
A: Cliff Christl - Sure. Good question. Even though I think Thompson deserves patience, there are plenty of red flags. Losing Wahle. Paying Bubba instead of Sharper. The players from his first draft aren't contributing much. Rodgers is still a big question mark. His free agent signings haven't contributed a whole lot. I think his signing of Koren Robinson showed a lack of good judgment. But even the best GMs are going to make as many mistakes as good decisions. Look at the Bears. Jerry Angelo has turned that team around, but has still made plenty of mistakes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Eric of Washington DC - I appreciate your tough realism. But sometimes you should remember that sports journalism is different from news journalism. Most of us don't do sports for a living, we just want to escape from our daily grind for a bit of fantasy, and sheer fun. Reading your rants is often deflating and depressing. If all teams are equal (given the salary cap, they should be roughly), there is about a 3% chance each year of winning the super bowl. It doesn't take a great analytic mind to point out (tirelessly) that the Packers have very little chance to be a special team this year or pretty much any other year. Fans with unrealistic hopes are not morons, they are the same people who read fiction novels, go to movies, and encourage their kids' silly dreams. Remember that this is the mentality of most fans next time you are tempted to dismiss someone as a hopeless fool for his unwarranted optimism or enthusiasm.
A: Cliff Christl - I disagree that sports journalism is different than news journalism. A good newspaperman approaches his job the same if he's covering sports, politics, whatever. This is how I view my job: To work as hard as I can so I can pass on all that I know to readers. I thank you for being one and don't want to drive you away. But if you want your news and information sugar-coated, I'd look elsewhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Stephen of Henderson - If the Packers were to open 0-4, would Thompson be open-minded to trading Favre and if so, could he get a No. 1 perhaps from Washington or Tampa Bay?
A: Cliff Christl - I don't think there's any way. And by week five, I doubt if the Packers would be able to get anything for Favre unless some 5-0 or 4-1 team lost its quarterback. By then, Washington and Tampa Bay could be pretty much out of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave Klug of Brewerville - Cliff, in your opinion, when a team is rebuilding like the Pack where do the earliest signs that it is headed down the right path appear? Is it in special teams where more speed and talent in the second and thirds could be a sign of such improvement throughout the roster? Is it in the first offensive and defensive units? Or is it in just a small number of players showing signs that they could be good to very good players and therefore lift up the rest of the team to success? Finally, do you believe there is a specific time (after the GM's 3rd draft, for instance) that these signs should become clear? Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - I kind of addressed this earlier. I think you look at the quarterback situation first. Then you look to see if the high draft picks are special, pushing for Pro Bowl honors. And then how many of the other players have a chance to be solid starters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tom of Milwaukee - You've written many times that the Packers lack playmakers and that it takes playmakers to contend. Ok....fine. I have no problem buying that and, given the overall youth of the team, I am not overly concerned that they lack playmakers. To me, the bigger question is, "will anybody on the current roster be a playmaker in three years?" Any thoughts, or is it too early to judge?
A: Cliff Christl - You're right. That is the critical question here. To be honest, I think the only possibility at this point is Hawk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Grant Jones of Chicago - Hey Cliff, I enjoy these chats very much. I was listening to a call in program this weekend when something occurred to me. Everyone including the talk show host blamed the Packer's failures on Mike Sherman's drafts. When are people in Wisconsin going to see the light? Focusing on something that happened three years ago is a big waste of time. The glory days are over. This isn’t 1996 and we are clearly witnessing a rebuilding effort. It is far too early to judge Thompson, McCarthy, or Jagonski.
A: Cliff Christl - The Packers are suffering to an extent because of Mike Sherman's drafts. No question about it. But it was the current regime that traded Sherman's best pick and the team's only young playmaker, Javon Walker. Mike Wahle said that if Sherman had stayed that he probably would still be a Packer. Nobody from Thompson's first draft has made much impact. You'd think one of those second-year players would have made a big jump this year. That's not Sherman's fault. Plus, Sherman made some bad decisions on draft day. But what people seem to forget is that he obtained some pretty solid young players through other means: Colin Cole, Cullen Jenkins. He traded for Al Harris. I don't consider that a great trade because the Packers would have been better off getting a good young corner as opposed to a good old corner with a No. 2 pick. But, then again, where would the Packers be without Harris? Silly question, I guess. The answer is 0-2, the same as they are with him. But you know what I mean. So it's not just Sherman's fault that the Packers are struggling. A lot of factors have contributed. The biggest one is that this is just how the cycle works in the NFL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jamie E. of Milwaukee of thee Wisconsin - Cliff, I was watching "Welcome to the NFL Rookie" on ESPN a couple of weeks ago and it showed the behind of the scenes of Vince Young and Reggie Bush during preseason. What jumped out at me is that after their preseason game when they shook hands on the field, Bush asked Young something to the effect of "What have you found most challenging thus far?" As Young though about it, Bush stated that his biggest adjustment was to the faster speed of the NFL from college. And Vince instantly agreed with him and said they'd catch on eventually. From their convo, I believe they were implying speed of the opposing players more than anything else. Now I heard that in the past that the biggest difference from amateur to the pros in all sports is the speed of the game. But hearing Young and Bush, who are arguably two of the fastest players at their respective positions, state that their biggest adjustments is speed I can only wonder about Hawk. From your experience with rookie linebackers, wouldn't that be the biggest burden on them as they're expected to read and react to the Vince Young's and Reggie Bush's of the league? Prior to the Saints game, more than a few began to question Hawk being selected with the 5th. But if Young and Bush are struggling with adjusting from a speed standpoint, wasn't/isn't it unfair to expect Hawk to be blowing up players in the backfield and picking off passes the minute he hit the field?
A: Cliff Christl - Well put. The speed of the game is the biggest difference. And I think Hawk has handled that reasonably well. He was chasing Bush down Sunday. He has been able to run with receivers deep downfield. But I haven't seen that speed when he rushes the passer. I haven't seen that explosiveness coming forward. But, you're right, it's too early to judge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: William Mucha of Fresno, CA - Cliff, the biggest shortcoming of Thompson is not addressing the strength of the division - imposing defensive tackles. Last year Thompson picked a couple guards off the scrap heap, it would have made sense to keep Wahle who is a premier player at that position. Should Thompson have pursued Hutchinson or Verba instead of counting on three rookies to handle such a critical area? Without consistent O-line play, can the Packers even be competitive against the division having to face these dominant defensive tackles the next several years and shouldn't Thompson be held more accountable? Didn't Ron Wolf insist that you must measure up to the strength of the division?
A: Cliff Christl - You make a good point about the strength of the division. It is the defensive tackles. And that's why the Packers are going to struggle to win any division games this year, although I can't imagine that they'd lose twice to Detroit. The mistake was letting Wahle go. Why let him go and then pay Hutchinson a ton more? Would that have made sense? Verba? The guys has been hurt. That's what you'd expect from somebody who has been out of football for that long. But it's an area where Thompson miscalculated. Guards might not be that important in some places. That's not the case in the NFC North.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Darrin of Longmont, CO - Cliff, Let me preface my remarks by saying I respect and enjoy your candor, analysis, and these chats. However, with regard to the Koren Robinson situation, you need to take a deep breath, halt your rush to judgment, and allow his tenure in Green Bay to play out before anointing him as the official Packer scapegoat --- 2006 version. Over the past few years, I’ve noticed that you seem to lock in on a player, put them under the proverbial microscope, and bash their shortcomings on a disproportionate basis. Each year, it’s a new whipping boy, be it Billy Schroeder, Michael Hawthorne, or Antonio Chatman to reference a few. No, they weren’t very good players, but your condemnation of their abilities, in my opinion, was often blatantly excessive and redundant. Now, it appears, you have Koren Robinson in your crosshairs. Relax a bit. In your blogs and editorials of late, you compare the current Packer team to that of the Mossy Cade/James Lofton criminal 1980’s version. They sign Robinson --- who has incredible baggage, I admit, and already you’ve immediately criticized the organization’s character, integrity, and Thompson’s judgment. Let’s chill out a bit. Don’t forget TT has a personal relationship with Robinson (he drafted him in Seattle, didn’t he) and might know which buttons to press. You’ve already cast aspersions on his play by referencing his so-called hostility immediately after a kick-off. C'mon Cliff, be fair. You can see those kinds of petty fisticuffs after nearly every special teams play. Heck, I just saw the Philly kicker, David Akers, throw some punches around at the Giants bench after a kickoff, for cripes sake. None of that stuff even draws penalties. I didn’t seem to see you rip Bubba Franks’ stupid personal foul penalty with the same righteous indignation. Do the Packers NOT have a glaring need for a kickoff returner? Do they NOT need a 5th receiver? Cliff, it just seems that with all your damnation of everything Koren, you’re laying the groundwork for a classic I-told-you-so editorial. I am neither a Koren Robinson supporter or apologist, but let’s be objective and extend the same judicious courtesy that was given Favre during his pill-popping, booze-guzzling days. The media seemed to give Favre a free pass for his flaws and chalked them up to youthful indiscretions, though Koren Robinson is essentially the same age as Favre when Favre was fighting his own personal demons. Robinson’s drunk driving history is incredibly troubling --- so was Favre's addiction(s). And Thompson might very well need a high-powered chisel to remove the egg from his face. But maybe --- just maybe --- those days are now behind Robinson and he’s going to make the most of what seems to be his final NFL chance in Green Bay. Wishful thinking? Perhaps. But let’s wait and see, huh?
A: Cliff Christl - I don't intentionally pinpoint so-called "whipping boys." I just thought it was inexcusable for the Packers to be playing Hawthorne and Chatman. You don't play players who have no past and no future. That's why I was so harsh in my criticism. As for Robinson, I just think the risks are too great. The guy couldn't stay straight in Minnesota when there was $12 million riding on it. That's what he threw away. I've been told by somebody who worked with Robinson in Seattle that there's a high probability that he will repeat his mistakes. She wrote: "Koren doesn't need to be playing football right now, he needs to be in an inpatient treatment facility." Also: "By the Packers signing him, it is only further sending the message to him that he can do what he wishes..." And finally: "Koren is only sorry when he gets caught and has to apologize to get what he wants." That said, she said he was "one heck of a guy." But that not what's important here. First of all, did the Packers talk to anybody who has been involved with his treatment or just the league and lawyers and agents? Also, did they weigh the risks to the organization over a player who hasn't been all that productive. All I know is that I've talked to several people in Green Bay -- longtime fans, people with connections to the organization -- who were, at the very least, offended by the decision. They may be in the minority, but you don't ever want to turn off loyal, hometown fans. The foam-at-the-mouth crowd doesn't matter. But the Portland Trail Blazers, as I wrote in my column, learned what the damage can be if you turn off too many good fans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Robert of Escanaba - Hey Cliff, It's a bad sign when you(meaning me) start looking back on the what if's over the past couple of years this early in the season but here goes my question. Of the following players , which players do you think the Packers should have made more effort to keep. Longwell, McKenzie, Rivera, Sharper,Wahl, Walker? It's not coincidence these are all major need areas now. Have the Packer's learned anything ???
A: Cliff Christl - 1) Javon Walker. 2) Mike Wahle. Those would be the two most important. I thought McKenzie was a loss at the time, but he has gone downhill fast. Rivera did too, at least last year. Sharper is the one who has continued to play well and make plays. I thought he was near the end, too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Swizz of Bristol (England) - Hi Cliff, I have three questions 1)Who should get more snaps, Colin Cole, Cullen Jenkins, Corey Williams ? 2)Which area of the team gives you most cause for concern at the moment ? (For me, going into game one, it was special teams, but that is changing) 3)Assume 3 day-one picks in the 07 draft, which positions most need addressing ? I know it is early for this kind of question, but for me the answer is a pointer to the state of our team now. Thanks, Swizz
A: Cliff Christl - I think all three deserve snaps, depending on down-and-distance, etc. They're not every-down players. Jenkins is playing the best probably, but he's best suited to be a pass rusher. The biggest concern? The lack of playmakers and the lack of good guards. Draft needs? Everything. There isn't a position that doesn't need to be shored up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dennis Schmidt of Sheboygan/Atlanta - Cliff, alcoholism is a disease. One out of 10 people are alcoholics. That means there are about 10,000 people a day driving around Green Bay under the influence - either starting at the end of the workday, or the people who drink at lunch, or the people who have an "eye-opener." Seems to me then that the majority of Green Bay residents are in denial, given that they won't give K-Rob another chance. And as a former sports editor of a daily paper in southeast WI, I guarantee you that journalists drink - heavily. Maybe it's time for everyone to sit back and think how many times they could have been arrested for drunk driving - especially on the way home from a game! Robinson needs support, not ridicule. Just ask Brett how important fan support was to help him beat his addiction. (Cliff, you and Bob are still the best beat writers in the NFL - after all these years!).
A: Cliff Christl - Your numbers might be right. And say they are. Are all 10,000 alcoholics going to bars to drink and driving? How many people in Wisconsin, if they were stopped for drunk driving, would speed off at 100 mph rather than accept the consequences? My guess is less than 1%.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff of Findlay OH - Greetings Cliff. You can come up with all the reasons you want for why the Packers stink. But you need look no further than Mike Sherman as GM. They say it takes draft picks 2-4 years to develop and see if you have anything. Those would be Mike Shermans draft classes. Yet only 5 starters were acquired by Sherman (Kampman, Harris, Jenkins, Barnett, Wells). That's why the team is up against it, Shermans poor drafting. Compare that to Wolf who still has 8 of his guys starting, and he hasn't done a draft in 6 years!! What are your thoughts for TT's drafting?
A: Cliff Christl - Add Walker to the list and you might be talking about the Packers' best offensive player. And Kampman and Barnett are two of their best defensive players. Harris is one, too. That said, you're right about Sherman's drafts. They didn't yield enough good players because he traded away too many picks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike Steele of Iron River - Cliff, let me first just say that I don't like you. You say you're not a fan, but the worse the Packers get, the more bitter and angry you become. I don't recall the last time you had a single positive thing to say about anything or anyone. One of your major dislikes seems to be Packer fans, which is why it puzzles me that they always have you doing these chats. And although to criticize the Koren Robinson signing is justified, you've repeatedly done it in very childish ways, and I've lost all respect for you. On to my question, could the preseason speculation about Barnett moving to the strong side still become a reality if Poppinga keeps getting toasted?
A: Cliff Christl - It's ok with me that you don't like me. I have no desire to win a popularity contest. And if I met you, I'm guessing I might not like you either. So we know where each other stands. I like that. But I have nothing against fans. I've met some of our subscribers and found them all to be likeable and reasonable. There's a fan from Hudson that I've talked to in the parking lot at training camp. Seems like a great guy. I met another one of our subscribers at a high school football game recently. Seemed like another really nice guy. There was another fan who regularly post questions on the chat who was outside the press box the day of the opener. I was short on time, but he also seemed like a nice guy. The vast majority of emails that I receive from fans are signed and filled with many good points and arguments even when they disagree with me. And I try to answer all of them because I appreciate that they're readers and subscribe to Packer Insider. But as I just wrote the foam-at-the-mouth crowd, the people who hide behind the cloak of anonymity, the people who make false accusations and turn everything into a personal attack, you're right, I have no use for people like that. Can't stomach them if you want to know the truth. On to your question. I don't think there's any way the Packers would move Barnett to strong-side linebacker. He's playing too well in the middle and they don’t have anybody better. I think they'll stick with Poppinga. If they don't, I think they'll play Ben Taylor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike of State College - We often talk/hear about the mess Sherman left in terms of personal, but my read of the team suggests the top 9 players came from Sherman Wolf. In essential two years, who is the top player - in terms of helping them win this sunday, not potential -- that Thompson has added? I am not sure he has done that great of a job.
A: Cliff Christl - Thompson's best acquisition? Great question. How about Hawk? Pickett? Jennings? It's a pretty short list of candidates. But some others could develop.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: neckbone of shepherd, mi - Hey Cliff. I am looking for a glimmer of hope. If you look at the 1992 roster (Holmgren's 1st year), only Sharpe was a known playmaker going into that season. In hindsight, we know there were players who emerged, but doesn't this team have a chance to finish strong like the 1992 team? I believe there are some talented players on current team and could be good when they are comfortable in the new system. Looking back on the 1992 roster it there were some solid players, but top to bottom not overwhelmingly talented. Sharpe, Butler, Favre, all playmakers true, but was Favre in his first year, much better than the current Favre? Couldn't we win 8 games if we beat the Lions this week? IMO it is way too early for all the gloom and doom! Thanks, bud and keep up the good work.
A: Cliff Christl - I don't think so. The Favre of 1992 was a rapidly ascending player, getting better by the week. And he's the reason the Packers started winning. Had Majkowski remained the quarterback, it might have been another 4-12 year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bruce L of Stevenstown, WI - Cliff: Great article this morning and the front office should take notice. But my guess is they have already seen results. I would predict that even after a single sorry season the Atrium alone has shown decreased revenue. They might excuse this as the "honeymoon" stage of the Atrium is now worn off. Any credibility to my hypothesis?
A: Cliff Christl - My understanding was that sales were down last year. Haven't heard about this year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: jeff of Minneapolis - people need to get some perspective on the organization and Favre. The Packers as an organization are doing the right things. It is going to take 2-3 years of good drafts plus free agency additions to right the ship. Sherman left this team with no quality players from the drafts-2002-2004, as well as no salary cap room. In 18 months they are now in a very good position with the cap and rebuilding through the draft. People nedd to forget that they were 10-6 just two years ago-- the infrastructure was tumbling and it was being covered up by some good AGING VETERANS. THEY WERE ALSO IN A VERY WEAK DIVISION. With regard to Favre, he is clearly not the q.b. he use to be. However, even in his prime he could not have helped us beat Chicago and he had a lot more talented veterans around him in his prime. If his receivers don't drop 6-7 balls- he throws for 400 yards and has a QB rating over 100. He did not lose the game and if we did not have him the game would not have even been close. His biggest liability is NOT his accuracy, its his decision making-learn to throw the ball away. thanks
A: Cliff Christl - I agree with most of what you wrote. But I wouldn't put all the blame on Sherman. His No. 1 picks were pretty good. He just traded away too many in subsequent rounds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave DeFreitas of Milwaukee - Cliff, thanks for your honest opinions on this year's team, even though it sounds like a lot of fans can't handle it. It seems as if the linebacker corps is a strength, but Nick Barnett seems destined to become the next disgruntled employee. Do you think TT will rip us his contract and try to sign him to a long term deal? Keep up the good work!
A: Cliff Christl - All players are looking to make more money. I think Barnett is one of the real good guys on that team. But his future might depend on Hodge's development. Then again, Hodge doesn't have Barnett's speed. And the Packers want speed on defense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Lance Johnson of Rice Lake, WI - Cliff: First a comment to your readers. Will you please listen to Mr. Christl. His observations, albeit blunt sometimes, are usually dead on. Why? Because he checks his emotions at the door where they belong and reports with objectivity. He's Bob McGinn with an edge! My question: Regarding your article this morning, what changes in the racial climate have you seen in Green Bay in the last 25 years? Have we (they)really made so little progress that we could actually relive the '80s? P.S. Please tell Ron Pitts that Elijah played in Green BAY, not GREEN Bay.
A: Cliff Christl - Thanks for the kind words, but I've been wrong plenty of times. Have attitudes changed in Green Bay? I hope so. The city is more diverse. But you read the letters to the editor in the local paper and there seems to be a lot of hatred that comes out of times. I guess I can't speak with any authority on the subject. But I thought the city did a poor job of dealing with Barnett and suffered some embarrassment as a result.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Simon Wozniak of Chippenham, England - Cliff. I have just got through reading your article entitled Warning signs for the Packers. Most thought provoking. Would it be fair to say that the basic tenor of your piece could be representative of any of the other 31 franchises as well. There are well publicized trials convictions / acquittals all around the league. There are players, for whatever reason, wanting out of other teams all the time. There is dressing room unrest in every dressing room in the land. I agree that these occurrences, coupled with bad form on the field, have troubled the Packers in the past. But I would suggest no more or no less than for any other franchise and to imply that this is a dilemma peculiar to the Packers is false. If this is a warning for the Packers it should stand as a warning to every team in the NFL.
A: Cliff Christl - The difference is that the Packers have a smaller fan base. Just like Portland. I'm sure they'll still sell the tickets. But they bank on the people of Green Bay in many ways. Plus, if they ever need to go back to the city for more money for stadium improvements or a new stadium, they better be in good graces with at least 50% of the voters. Remember the last referendum was what 53%-47%? And I think that was a soft 53%. If that referendum didn't pass, no telling where the Packers would be today. They might be headed to Milwaukee or LA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: AN OLD PACKER FAN of BROOKFIELD - WHY DO WE ALWAYS FORGET HISTORY. I SAW THE PACKERS PLAY AT STATE FAIR PARK IN MILWAUKEE, WHEN JOHNNY BLOOD MCNALLY, HALL OF FAME, HAD TO BE BAILED OUT OF JAIL FOR SUNDAYS GAME MORE OFTEN THAN NOT. WHEN RAP SHEETS DID NOT PREVENT THE MONSTERS OF THE MIDWAY FROM PLAYING TO THE DELIGHT OF THE FANS. WHEN THROUGHOUT HISTORY THE PACKERS HAD ADORNED AS THEIR HEROES, BLOOD, HORNUNG, LOFTON, DAVENPORT , RISON, AND OTHERS WITH SHADY PASTS. LOMBARDI SAID THAT WINNING IS EVERYTHING AND HE IGNORED THE PLAYFUL ANTICS OF HORNUNG, MCGEE, THURSTON, AND OTHERS. THEIR WAS NO CRITICISM FOR MARCOL WHEN HE WON GAMES. THE FANS DRINK HEARTILY AT THE GAMES AND SOMETIMES BEFORE AND AFTER. THE PLAYERS ARE HELD TO A CERTAIN STANDARD AND TAKE LOSSES PERSONALLY. THE SIGNING OF KOREN ROBINSON WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE NO TALENT ON THE ROSTER WAS CLOSE TO BEING EQUAL TO HIM AS A PLAYER. THIS IS A LAND OF OPPORTUNITY AND GREEN BAY, WI. IS THE HEART AND SOUL OF THAT LAND. MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS THIS. DO THE DEDICATED PACKER FANS WANT A WINNER OR A LOSER? WHY DOES THE SPORTS PRESS CASTIGATE A NEW PLAYER BEFORE HIS FIRST KICKOFF AT LAMBEAU FIELD ? A LOYAL FAN.
A: Cliff Christl - I'd like to believe you. But if you remember watching Blood, you're at least 80 years old. If you were old enough then to know all about his transgressions off the field, you're probably 90 or older today. I don't know that Blood ever had to be bailed out of jail before a game. I have heard that he used to keep a bottle in a brown bag next to a tree in the park where the Packers practiced and he'd sneak a swig every once in awhile. Times have changed. Actually, times have changed since Wolf was in Green Bay. When you're winning, you can get away with things you can't get away with when you're losing. Thanks for all the questions. Good night.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACK TO TOP
© 2006, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. All rights reserved. Produced by Journal Interactive | Privacy Policy.
Q: Joe Mitchell of Madison - Hey Cliff, thanks for all the chats. Despite the idiocy at times, I learn far more from these discussions than from anything else. I have a simple yet complicated question. What signs can we look for as fans to know a corner has been turned? When will we know the ship has stopped taking on water? Is it just as simple as counting playmakers? Maybe count the number of drafted players in their 3rd or 4th year?
A: Cliff Christl - Joe, you posted the first question, we'll start with you. It's a good question and I don't know if there's a right or simple answer. Thinking back to '92, as I recall, wasn't it fairly obvious that Favre was somebody special soon after he started playing and winning games? So much hinges on the quarterback, I'd say that's the first position to monitor. The Packers aren't going anywhere soon if Rodgers isn't the guy, assuming that Favre is in his last year or second last year. Watch for the progress of other players, as well. For example, they kept three draft choices in the offensive line this year. If by next year or the year after, all three are solid players that obviously will be good sign. After all, it may be sooner than later that the Packers will have to replace Clifton and Tauscher. So if just one of their current young offensive linemen develops into a player, it's going to take time to fill the other holes across the line. If three do, the line could be pretty good pretty quick. But probably the most important beside the quarterback situation will be monitoring the development of the Packers' No. 1 draft picks. If they're busts, the process is going to take longer. If they're simply good players that will help, but it might not result in a quick turn-around. If they're special players, guys who make plays and dominate games, it could be a fast turnaround. Then filling in the other positions will be much easier. But, in the end, I think the toughest challenge for Ted Thompson will be replacing Favre. It can take forever to replace a legend. And until they do, they're not going to win any Super Bowls.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Todd of Upper Michigan - Everybody seems to think the Packers would be better off trading Favre or at least sitting him and letting Rodgers have his shot. As far as revenue and marketability for the Packers wouldn't this be a big mistake? If we had no Brett do you really think we'd get 2 Monday night games? Doesn't he bring in millions in revenue for the Pack just by being on the team?
A: Cliff Christl - No question. He has been the face of the franchise. If he wasn't on the team, the Packers wouldn't be on national TV. He gets them more exposure than they deserve based on their recent play. But there's no room for sentiment in the NFL. If the player ready to take his place is better, they need to make the switch. But at this point, Rodgers isn't better. Would it help the team in the long run to trade Favre? Maybe if they could get a high draft pick in return. But maybe that's an unrealistic expectation. Would the Packers benefit by playing Rodgers now? I'm not convinced of that. I'm not sure Rodgers would benefit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Hoot of Toivola MI - Hi cliff while driving to the game on Sunday I caught the tail end of your radio gig. Do you always do the pre-game? Do you enjoy it? I would have thought you to be to be to honest to put on live radio.
A: Cliff Christl - They rotate their guests. It's the second time I've done it this year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bob of San Antonio - Read your recent article on What packers should watch for. Do you ever write anything positive about the Pack, if so please refer me to it so I can frame it.
A: Cliff Christl - If you want a steady diet of positive, I'd recommend reading the Packers' official website. They probably make 0-2, losing at home to a team that was 3-13 last year, all that stuff sound good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Crazy Dave of Lunatic Fringe, WI - Cliff, It's time to fire up the engines on the "Fire Ted Thompson" bandwagon. The guy is a one trick pony, with no other plan for building a team than trading down to add picks in the hopes that he hits the jackpot on a couple. If they suck bad enough, throw in couple top 5's. That's no way to build a team in a league as competitive as the NFL, where every other team uses every means available to improve themselves. How about this fact if your still not convinced. The guy had 12 draft picks, including a top 5, plus $20 Million in cap room this offseason and still puts a squad on the field that's clearly worse than last year. In two years, he's had 23 picks and all that money and still can't find a guard who's even close to an adequate starter in the NFL, in front of a $10 Mil HOF QB. It's like leaving a pile of cash in your house and not locking the door. What justification can you possibly give for continuing to let this no talent stick in the mud run one of the most storied franchises in sports history?
A: Cliff Christl - He tackled a big challenge. He inherited a descending team and teams that fall into the category are difficult to turn around. I agree with his philosophy about building through the draft. And it will take time. But, you're right, you can't build a winning team exclusively through the draft. You need to uncover street free agents, pay for some quality unrestricted free agents, make trades, etc. I think he's done all that. Not many of the players that he has acquired are paying off. But that, too, takes time. For example, the three rookie offensive linemen might need three, four years to develop, just as Mike Wahle did. I think Thompson deserves more patience than you're willing to give him. Plus, you can't run a franchise looking for scapegoats every year. You need to maintain some stability at least short term.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Doug Hauseman of Poughkeepsie, NY - Cliff, Appreciate your candor. Trading Favre makes no sense to me. We would get very little for him, certainly not higher than a 3rd or 4th, which means we run a real risk of getting absolutely nothing. From Mgmt perspective, Favre gives the Packers the ONLY chance to win. How does Mgmt survive an 0-16 season. Seems to me they'd be trading their only chance to keep their jobs.
A: Cliff Christl - You might be right. Without Favre, the Packers might be a zip-and-16 team. He, at least, gives them a fighting chance. I think last off-season, the Packers might have found a team willing to give up a likely late No. 1 or No. 2 pick for Favre. That's why I advocated trading him then. Now, it's possible that he wouldn't bring any more than a third or fourth. So I agree with you. It probably doesn't make much sense to trade him at this point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Steve Long of Solon Springs, Wi - Is ted thompson a smart man with some hidden agenda he is playing out that we don't see? Is he trying to just collect young bodies until he thinks he has enough talent to make a run for it? Or is he just throwing things at the wall right now to see what sticks? i.e. The Gado trade seemed like he should have known that situation before camp was over, and the signing of Koren Robinson is questionable.
A: Cliff Christl - He wasn't around the league as long as Wolf. I think Wolf's background better prepared him for the job. And I don't think Thompson is as savvy as Wolf. But I don't think he's in over his head, either. He works hard. He's surrounded by some good people. He knows football. Again, the Packers won for so long, it figured that at some point, they'd crash and burn. And that seems to be what has happened here. Under the circumstances, there are no quick fixes. Could Thompson have done some things to keep the Packers more competitive? Sure. But would they have just been buying time? I think so. I think this team had to be rebuilt from the ground up and I think the process has just begun.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: tim of orange - Collins and Marquand both look slow. Collins looks overweight. Do you think the Packers would consider putting Woodson at safety?
A: Cliff Christl - I agree that Manuel looks slow. I don't think Collins is slow. He just doesn't look good in one-on-one coverage. But that may be the fault of the coaches more than Collins. I don't think he practiced all summer at a cover position in the nickel or dime. At least, I don't recall seeing him do it. I think it's a mistake to put a young player in a situation that he hasn't been properly prepared to handle. His biggest problem has been playing the ball, not keeping up with receivers. What about Woodson at safety? I know some think that might be his best position now. And maybe so. But he's a finesse player. He's not a Ronnie Lott type corner. Plus, who do the Packers play at corner in his place?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Rich of Whitefish Bay - I don't get it...NFL teams come and NFL teams go... Truth be told we have to go through this pain of last season, this season and probably next season too. Will it hurt - Yes. Will we cringe and want to turn off the TV by the time the 4th quarter starts -Yes. Just the way it is, so why are people so desperate now? Why go after Favre???? Okay so they are 1-7 in the past comeback attempts...duh look who is around him. It is time to just enjoy watching Brett a few more times...enjoy watching his joy for the game. The fact is all this pressure to speed this process up will cause problems that will circumvent the process to build another team that wins the super bowl in 4-5 years and instead create a team that competes weakly for the playoffs to lose in the first round for years and years to come. Its time to just sit back and let the team rebuild...and these poll questions about sitting Farve only make things worse by getting the fan base despondent.... It might sell newspapers and keep talk radio lines lit up...but it doesn't help win another super bowl soon..... Thanks for letting me rant.
A: Cliff Christl - You make some good points and you ranted without leveling personal attacks. At least, you're not part of the lynch mob. I wouldn't argue with your take on this at all. But it's not my job or the media's job to make it easier for the Packers to rebuild. That's up to them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John H of Sheridan, WY - Why doesn't the Pack trade Ahmad Carroll before he loses all of his value? He's already proven to be a liability more than an asset to the team. For a man like Ted Thompson who seems to have no hesitation to cut a subpar player... I can't understand why Carroll is still around and being targeted by the opposing teams.
A: Cliff Christl - I don't think he has much trade value and I still think there's a possibility he could develop into a good corner. I wouldn't bet anything on it. But he has made small progress each year. And except for two plays, he played well Sunday, both on special teams and defense. He made some plays against Reggie Bush. Right now, Carroll has more value to the Packers than he does on the trade market. That's typical of most players. That's why you don't see many trades.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Kenny Jay of Reno - Cliff, My thoughts. Everyone's blaming Mike Sherman or Ted Thompson for the mess we're in right now. I agree they are responsible to a point, but I place the larger part of the blame on Ron Wolf. Wolf was definitely the savior of this franchise in the early 90's. Without him we never would have had Favre, Holmgren or a Super Bowl. I salute him. On the flip side, he also destroyed our immediate future. He let one of the best football coaches get away in Mike Holmgren. With Holmgren and a Brett Favre near his prime, I think the Packers could have gotten back into the Super Bowl at least one more time. I understand that Holmgren wanted to be a GM and call all of the shots, and I respect that. I was probably one of the few Packer fans that haven’t held a grudge against him for leaving. Frankly, anyone would have jumped on the offer he got from Seattle. You've written before, and Wolf has stated on more than one occasion that he had no idea he would burn out and leave after only one year with Mike Sherman. Maybe that's true, I don't know. Part of me thinks Wolf wanted this franchise to take a nose dive after him. It only makes his legacy brighter, I hope I'm not being too cynical. Anyways, hind sight is always wonderful. I just wish Wolf would have stepped aside, and let Holmgrem take over the Packers in 1998, I think things would have been quite a bit different. Thanks for listening Dr. Christl, we're all are going to need a lot of therapy the next few years.
A: Cliff Christl - I think you're being too cynical about Wolf. I don't think you can fault him. And if it wasn't for him, who knows? The Packers might be on their last legs and headed for Los Angeles. So I'd count your blessings that he came along when he did.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Digger of Andover - Cliff, On April 17 you indeed suggested the Packers should trade Favre. You hypothesized at the time they could get a number one or perhaps a number 2 (and why not-the Vikings got a number 2 for Culpepper). What is the lowest pick you'd take for him today if you were GM? Could the Packers still get a number 3 for him right now? Would you take it? Would anyone offer? C'mon Cliffy let's get some trade rumors started.
A: Cliff Christl - Good question. I don't think I'd trade him for a third. What are you really getting in exchange for the flak your going to take for being so heartless?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Evan Argall of Cedarburg - Nick Collins has good size, great speed, is tough and hits hard. That being said, his deficiencies in coverage have been startling and obvious, whether it be his blown coverages last week or his seeming inability to make an interception when the opportunity is presented. Seeing that Manuel is a marginal started at best, I think the Packers should move Collins to Strong Safety as soon as they can. I am pretty sure there is no cover safety on the roster (boy, Darren Sharper would look pretty good back there) but given Collins skill set and Manuel's ineptitude, that move should be on Ted Thompson's mind this season and going into next off season. Your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - I'm not a coach, but my understanding is that their safeties are still pretty much interchangeable, just as they were in the Donatell-Slowik scheme. So I don't think a position change is the solution. Collins is a young player. You live with the growing pains for now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Joey of San Antonio - I know Ron Wolf made some mistakes, but have you seen some red flags in TT's reign that make you wonder if the Pack is headed in the right direction? Red flag for me was the contract offered to a pedestrian TE in Franks, and letting go of Wahle who was just entering the prime of his career.
A: Cliff Christl - Sure. Good question. Even though I think Thompson deserves patience, there are plenty of red flags. Losing Wahle. Paying Bubba instead of Sharper. The players from his first draft aren't contributing much. Rodgers is still a big question mark. His free agent signings haven't contributed a whole lot. I think his signing of Koren Robinson showed a lack of good judgment. But even the best GMs are going to make as many mistakes as good decisions. Look at the Bears. Jerry Angelo has turned that team around, but has still made plenty of mistakes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Eric of Washington DC - I appreciate your tough realism. But sometimes you should remember that sports journalism is different from news journalism. Most of us don't do sports for a living, we just want to escape from our daily grind for a bit of fantasy, and sheer fun. Reading your rants is often deflating and depressing. If all teams are equal (given the salary cap, they should be roughly), there is about a 3% chance each year of winning the super bowl. It doesn't take a great analytic mind to point out (tirelessly) that the Packers have very little chance to be a special team this year or pretty much any other year. Fans with unrealistic hopes are not morons, they are the same people who read fiction novels, go to movies, and encourage their kids' silly dreams. Remember that this is the mentality of most fans next time you are tempted to dismiss someone as a hopeless fool for his unwarranted optimism or enthusiasm.
A: Cliff Christl - I disagree that sports journalism is different than news journalism. A good newspaperman approaches his job the same if he's covering sports, politics, whatever. This is how I view my job: To work as hard as I can so I can pass on all that I know to readers. I thank you for being one and don't want to drive you away. But if you want your news and information sugar-coated, I'd look elsewhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Stephen of Henderson - If the Packers were to open 0-4, would Thompson be open-minded to trading Favre and if so, could he get a No. 1 perhaps from Washington or Tampa Bay?
A: Cliff Christl - I don't think there's any way. And by week five, I doubt if the Packers would be able to get anything for Favre unless some 5-0 or 4-1 team lost its quarterback. By then, Washington and Tampa Bay could be pretty much out of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave Klug of Brewerville - Cliff, in your opinion, when a team is rebuilding like the Pack where do the earliest signs that it is headed down the right path appear? Is it in special teams where more speed and talent in the second and thirds could be a sign of such improvement throughout the roster? Is it in the first offensive and defensive units? Or is it in just a small number of players showing signs that they could be good to very good players and therefore lift up the rest of the team to success? Finally, do you believe there is a specific time (after the GM's 3rd draft, for instance) that these signs should become clear? Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - I kind of addressed this earlier. I think you look at the quarterback situation first. Then you look to see if the high draft picks are special, pushing for Pro Bowl honors. And then how many of the other players have a chance to be solid starters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tom of Milwaukee - You've written many times that the Packers lack playmakers and that it takes playmakers to contend. Ok....fine. I have no problem buying that and, given the overall youth of the team, I am not overly concerned that they lack playmakers. To me, the bigger question is, "will anybody on the current roster be a playmaker in three years?" Any thoughts, or is it too early to judge?
A: Cliff Christl - You're right. That is the critical question here. To be honest, I think the only possibility at this point is Hawk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Grant Jones of Chicago - Hey Cliff, I enjoy these chats very much. I was listening to a call in program this weekend when something occurred to me. Everyone including the talk show host blamed the Packer's failures on Mike Sherman's drafts. When are people in Wisconsin going to see the light? Focusing on something that happened three years ago is a big waste of time. The glory days are over. This isn’t 1996 and we are clearly witnessing a rebuilding effort. It is far too early to judge Thompson, McCarthy, or Jagonski.
A: Cliff Christl - The Packers are suffering to an extent because of Mike Sherman's drafts. No question about it. But it was the current regime that traded Sherman's best pick and the team's only young playmaker, Javon Walker. Mike Wahle said that if Sherman had stayed that he probably would still be a Packer. Nobody from Thompson's first draft has made much impact. You'd think one of those second-year players would have made a big jump this year. That's not Sherman's fault. Plus, Sherman made some bad decisions on draft day. But what people seem to forget is that he obtained some pretty solid young players through other means: Colin Cole, Cullen Jenkins. He traded for Al Harris. I don't consider that a great trade because the Packers would have been better off getting a good young corner as opposed to a good old corner with a No. 2 pick. But, then again, where would the Packers be without Harris? Silly question, I guess. The answer is 0-2, the same as they are with him. But you know what I mean. So it's not just Sherman's fault that the Packers are struggling. A lot of factors have contributed. The biggest one is that this is just how the cycle works in the NFL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jamie E. of Milwaukee of thee Wisconsin - Cliff, I was watching "Welcome to the NFL Rookie" on ESPN a couple of weeks ago and it showed the behind of the scenes of Vince Young and Reggie Bush during preseason. What jumped out at me is that after their preseason game when they shook hands on the field, Bush asked Young something to the effect of "What have you found most challenging thus far?" As Young though about it, Bush stated that his biggest adjustment was to the faster speed of the NFL from college. And Vince instantly agreed with him and said they'd catch on eventually. From their convo, I believe they were implying speed of the opposing players more than anything else. Now I heard that in the past that the biggest difference from amateur to the pros in all sports is the speed of the game. But hearing Young and Bush, who are arguably two of the fastest players at their respective positions, state that their biggest adjustments is speed I can only wonder about Hawk. From your experience with rookie linebackers, wouldn't that be the biggest burden on them as they're expected to read and react to the Vince Young's and Reggie Bush's of the league? Prior to the Saints game, more than a few began to question Hawk being selected with the 5th. But if Young and Bush are struggling with adjusting from a speed standpoint, wasn't/isn't it unfair to expect Hawk to be blowing up players in the backfield and picking off passes the minute he hit the field?
A: Cliff Christl - Well put. The speed of the game is the biggest difference. And I think Hawk has handled that reasonably well. He was chasing Bush down Sunday. He has been able to run with receivers deep downfield. But I haven't seen that speed when he rushes the passer. I haven't seen that explosiveness coming forward. But, you're right, it's too early to judge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: William Mucha of Fresno, CA - Cliff, the biggest shortcoming of Thompson is not addressing the strength of the division - imposing defensive tackles. Last year Thompson picked a couple guards off the scrap heap, it would have made sense to keep Wahle who is a premier player at that position. Should Thompson have pursued Hutchinson or Verba instead of counting on three rookies to handle such a critical area? Without consistent O-line play, can the Packers even be competitive against the division having to face these dominant defensive tackles the next several years and shouldn't Thompson be held more accountable? Didn't Ron Wolf insist that you must measure up to the strength of the division?
A: Cliff Christl - You make a good point about the strength of the division. It is the defensive tackles. And that's why the Packers are going to struggle to win any division games this year, although I can't imagine that they'd lose twice to Detroit. The mistake was letting Wahle go. Why let him go and then pay Hutchinson a ton more? Would that have made sense? Verba? The guys has been hurt. That's what you'd expect from somebody who has been out of football for that long. But it's an area where Thompson miscalculated. Guards might not be that important in some places. That's not the case in the NFC North.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Darrin of Longmont, CO - Cliff, Let me preface my remarks by saying I respect and enjoy your candor, analysis, and these chats. However, with regard to the Koren Robinson situation, you need to take a deep breath, halt your rush to judgment, and allow his tenure in Green Bay to play out before anointing him as the official Packer scapegoat --- 2006 version. Over the past few years, I’ve noticed that you seem to lock in on a player, put them under the proverbial microscope, and bash their shortcomings on a disproportionate basis. Each year, it’s a new whipping boy, be it Billy Schroeder, Michael Hawthorne, or Antonio Chatman to reference a few. No, they weren’t very good players, but your condemnation of their abilities, in my opinion, was often blatantly excessive and redundant. Now, it appears, you have Koren Robinson in your crosshairs. Relax a bit. In your blogs and editorials of late, you compare the current Packer team to that of the Mossy Cade/James Lofton criminal 1980’s version. They sign Robinson --- who has incredible baggage, I admit, and already you’ve immediately criticized the organization’s character, integrity, and Thompson’s judgment. Let’s chill out a bit. Don’t forget TT has a personal relationship with Robinson (he drafted him in Seattle, didn’t he) and might know which buttons to press. You’ve already cast aspersions on his play by referencing his so-called hostility immediately after a kick-off. C'mon Cliff, be fair. You can see those kinds of petty fisticuffs after nearly every special teams play. Heck, I just saw the Philly kicker, David Akers, throw some punches around at the Giants bench after a kickoff, for cripes sake. None of that stuff even draws penalties. I didn’t seem to see you rip Bubba Franks’ stupid personal foul penalty with the same righteous indignation. Do the Packers NOT have a glaring need for a kickoff returner? Do they NOT need a 5th receiver? Cliff, it just seems that with all your damnation of everything Koren, you’re laying the groundwork for a classic I-told-you-so editorial. I am neither a Koren Robinson supporter or apologist, but let’s be objective and extend the same judicious courtesy that was given Favre during his pill-popping, booze-guzzling days. The media seemed to give Favre a free pass for his flaws and chalked them up to youthful indiscretions, though Koren Robinson is essentially the same age as Favre when Favre was fighting his own personal demons. Robinson’s drunk driving history is incredibly troubling --- so was Favre's addiction(s). And Thompson might very well need a high-powered chisel to remove the egg from his face. But maybe --- just maybe --- those days are now behind Robinson and he’s going to make the most of what seems to be his final NFL chance in Green Bay. Wishful thinking? Perhaps. But let’s wait and see, huh?
A: Cliff Christl - I don't intentionally pinpoint so-called "whipping boys." I just thought it was inexcusable for the Packers to be playing Hawthorne and Chatman. You don't play players who have no past and no future. That's why I was so harsh in my criticism. As for Robinson, I just think the risks are too great. The guy couldn't stay straight in Minnesota when there was $12 million riding on it. That's what he threw away. I've been told by somebody who worked with Robinson in Seattle that there's a high probability that he will repeat his mistakes. She wrote: "Koren doesn't need to be playing football right now, he needs to be in an inpatient treatment facility." Also: "By the Packers signing him, it is only further sending the message to him that he can do what he wishes..." And finally: "Koren is only sorry when he gets caught and has to apologize to get what he wants." That said, she said he was "one heck of a guy." But that not what's important here. First of all, did the Packers talk to anybody who has been involved with his treatment or just the league and lawyers and agents? Also, did they weigh the risks to the organization over a player who hasn't been all that productive. All I know is that I've talked to several people in Green Bay -- longtime fans, people with connections to the organization -- who were, at the very least, offended by the decision. They may be in the minority, but you don't ever want to turn off loyal, hometown fans. The foam-at-the-mouth crowd doesn't matter. But the Portland Trail Blazers, as I wrote in my column, learned what the damage can be if you turn off too many good fans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Robert of Escanaba - Hey Cliff, It's a bad sign when you(meaning me) start looking back on the what if's over the past couple of years this early in the season but here goes my question. Of the following players , which players do you think the Packers should have made more effort to keep. Longwell, McKenzie, Rivera, Sharper,Wahl, Walker? It's not coincidence these are all major need areas now. Have the Packer's learned anything ???
A: Cliff Christl - 1) Javon Walker. 2) Mike Wahle. Those would be the two most important. I thought McKenzie was a loss at the time, but he has gone downhill fast. Rivera did too, at least last year. Sharper is the one who has continued to play well and make plays. I thought he was near the end, too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Swizz of Bristol (England) - Hi Cliff, I have three questions 1)Who should get more snaps, Colin Cole, Cullen Jenkins, Corey Williams ? 2)Which area of the team gives you most cause for concern at the moment ? (For me, going into game one, it was special teams, but that is changing) 3)Assume 3 day-one picks in the 07 draft, which positions most need addressing ? I know it is early for this kind of question, but for me the answer is a pointer to the state of our team now. Thanks, Swizz
A: Cliff Christl - I think all three deserve snaps, depending on down-and-distance, etc. They're not every-down players. Jenkins is playing the best probably, but he's best suited to be a pass rusher. The biggest concern? The lack of playmakers and the lack of good guards. Draft needs? Everything. There isn't a position that doesn't need to be shored up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dennis Schmidt of Sheboygan/Atlanta - Cliff, alcoholism is a disease. One out of 10 people are alcoholics. That means there are about 10,000 people a day driving around Green Bay under the influence - either starting at the end of the workday, or the people who drink at lunch, or the people who have an "eye-opener." Seems to me then that the majority of Green Bay residents are in denial, given that they won't give K-Rob another chance. And as a former sports editor of a daily paper in southeast WI, I guarantee you that journalists drink - heavily. Maybe it's time for everyone to sit back and think how many times they could have been arrested for drunk driving - especially on the way home from a game! Robinson needs support, not ridicule. Just ask Brett how important fan support was to help him beat his addiction. (Cliff, you and Bob are still the best beat writers in the NFL - after all these years!).
A: Cliff Christl - Your numbers might be right. And say they are. Are all 10,000 alcoholics going to bars to drink and driving? How many people in Wisconsin, if they were stopped for drunk driving, would speed off at 100 mph rather than accept the consequences? My guess is less than 1%.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff of Findlay OH - Greetings Cliff. You can come up with all the reasons you want for why the Packers stink. But you need look no further than Mike Sherman as GM. They say it takes draft picks 2-4 years to develop and see if you have anything. Those would be Mike Shermans draft classes. Yet only 5 starters were acquired by Sherman (Kampman, Harris, Jenkins, Barnett, Wells). That's why the team is up against it, Shermans poor drafting. Compare that to Wolf who still has 8 of his guys starting, and he hasn't done a draft in 6 years!! What are your thoughts for TT's drafting?
A: Cliff Christl - Add Walker to the list and you might be talking about the Packers' best offensive player. And Kampman and Barnett are two of their best defensive players. Harris is one, too. That said, you're right about Sherman's drafts. They didn't yield enough good players because he traded away too many picks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike Steele of Iron River - Cliff, let me first just say that I don't like you. You say you're not a fan, but the worse the Packers get, the more bitter and angry you become. I don't recall the last time you had a single positive thing to say about anything or anyone. One of your major dislikes seems to be Packer fans, which is why it puzzles me that they always have you doing these chats. And although to criticize the Koren Robinson signing is justified, you've repeatedly done it in very childish ways, and I've lost all respect for you. On to my question, could the preseason speculation about Barnett moving to the strong side still become a reality if Poppinga keeps getting toasted?
A: Cliff Christl - It's ok with me that you don't like me. I have no desire to win a popularity contest. And if I met you, I'm guessing I might not like you either. So we know where each other stands. I like that. But I have nothing against fans. I've met some of our subscribers and found them all to be likeable and reasonable. There's a fan from Hudson that I've talked to in the parking lot at training camp. Seems like a great guy. I met another one of our subscribers at a high school football game recently. Seemed like another really nice guy. There was another fan who regularly post questions on the chat who was outside the press box the day of the opener. I was short on time, but he also seemed like a nice guy. The vast majority of emails that I receive from fans are signed and filled with many good points and arguments even when they disagree with me. And I try to answer all of them because I appreciate that they're readers and subscribe to Packer Insider. But as I just wrote the foam-at-the-mouth crowd, the people who hide behind the cloak of anonymity, the people who make false accusations and turn everything into a personal attack, you're right, I have no use for people like that. Can't stomach them if you want to know the truth. On to your question. I don't think there's any way the Packers would move Barnett to strong-side linebacker. He's playing too well in the middle and they don’t have anybody better. I think they'll stick with Poppinga. If they don't, I think they'll play Ben Taylor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike of State College - We often talk/hear about the mess Sherman left in terms of personal, but my read of the team suggests the top 9 players came from Sherman Wolf. In essential two years, who is the top player - in terms of helping them win this sunday, not potential -- that Thompson has added? I am not sure he has done that great of a job.
A: Cliff Christl - Thompson's best acquisition? Great question. How about Hawk? Pickett? Jennings? It's a pretty short list of candidates. But some others could develop.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: neckbone of shepherd, mi - Hey Cliff. I am looking for a glimmer of hope. If you look at the 1992 roster (Holmgren's 1st year), only Sharpe was a known playmaker going into that season. In hindsight, we know there were players who emerged, but doesn't this team have a chance to finish strong like the 1992 team? I believe there are some talented players on current team and could be good when they are comfortable in the new system. Looking back on the 1992 roster it there were some solid players, but top to bottom not overwhelmingly talented. Sharpe, Butler, Favre, all playmakers true, but was Favre in his first year, much better than the current Favre? Couldn't we win 8 games if we beat the Lions this week? IMO it is way too early for all the gloom and doom! Thanks, bud and keep up the good work.
A: Cliff Christl - I don't think so. The Favre of 1992 was a rapidly ascending player, getting better by the week. And he's the reason the Packers started winning. Had Majkowski remained the quarterback, it might have been another 4-12 year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bruce L of Stevenstown, WI - Cliff: Great article this morning and the front office should take notice. But my guess is they have already seen results. I would predict that even after a single sorry season the Atrium alone has shown decreased revenue. They might excuse this as the "honeymoon" stage of the Atrium is now worn off. Any credibility to my hypothesis?
A: Cliff Christl - My understanding was that sales were down last year. Haven't heard about this year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: jeff of Minneapolis - people need to get some perspective on the organization and Favre. The Packers as an organization are doing the right things. It is going to take 2-3 years of good drafts plus free agency additions to right the ship. Sherman left this team with no quality players from the drafts-2002-2004, as well as no salary cap room. In 18 months they are now in a very good position with the cap and rebuilding through the draft. People nedd to forget that they were 10-6 just two years ago-- the infrastructure was tumbling and it was being covered up by some good AGING VETERANS. THEY WERE ALSO IN A VERY WEAK DIVISION. With regard to Favre, he is clearly not the q.b. he use to be. However, even in his prime he could not have helped us beat Chicago and he had a lot more talented veterans around him in his prime. If his receivers don't drop 6-7 balls- he throws for 400 yards and has a QB rating over 100. He did not lose the game and if we did not have him the game would not have even been close. His biggest liability is NOT his accuracy, its his decision making-learn to throw the ball away. thanks
A: Cliff Christl - I agree with most of what you wrote. But I wouldn't put all the blame on Sherman. His No. 1 picks were pretty good. He just traded away too many in subsequent rounds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave DeFreitas of Milwaukee - Cliff, thanks for your honest opinions on this year's team, even though it sounds like a lot of fans can't handle it. It seems as if the linebacker corps is a strength, but Nick Barnett seems destined to become the next disgruntled employee. Do you think TT will rip us his contract and try to sign him to a long term deal? Keep up the good work!
A: Cliff Christl - All players are looking to make more money. I think Barnett is one of the real good guys on that team. But his future might depend on Hodge's development. Then again, Hodge doesn't have Barnett's speed. And the Packers want speed on defense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Lance Johnson of Rice Lake, WI - Cliff: First a comment to your readers. Will you please listen to Mr. Christl. His observations, albeit blunt sometimes, are usually dead on. Why? Because he checks his emotions at the door where they belong and reports with objectivity. He's Bob McGinn with an edge! My question: Regarding your article this morning, what changes in the racial climate have you seen in Green Bay in the last 25 years? Have we (they)really made so little progress that we could actually relive the '80s? P.S. Please tell Ron Pitts that Elijah played in Green BAY, not GREEN Bay.
A: Cliff Christl - Thanks for the kind words, but I've been wrong plenty of times. Have attitudes changed in Green Bay? I hope so. The city is more diverse. But you read the letters to the editor in the local paper and there seems to be a lot of hatred that comes out of times. I guess I can't speak with any authority on the subject. But I thought the city did a poor job of dealing with Barnett and suffered some embarrassment as a result.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Simon Wozniak of Chippenham, England - Cliff. I have just got through reading your article entitled Warning signs for the Packers. Most thought provoking. Would it be fair to say that the basic tenor of your piece could be representative of any of the other 31 franchises as well. There are well publicized trials convictions / acquittals all around the league. There are players, for whatever reason, wanting out of other teams all the time. There is dressing room unrest in every dressing room in the land. I agree that these occurrences, coupled with bad form on the field, have troubled the Packers in the past. But I would suggest no more or no less than for any other franchise and to imply that this is a dilemma peculiar to the Packers is false. If this is a warning for the Packers it should stand as a warning to every team in the NFL.
A: Cliff Christl - The difference is that the Packers have a smaller fan base. Just like Portland. I'm sure they'll still sell the tickets. But they bank on the people of Green Bay in many ways. Plus, if they ever need to go back to the city for more money for stadium improvements or a new stadium, they better be in good graces with at least 50% of the voters. Remember the last referendum was what 53%-47%? And I think that was a soft 53%. If that referendum didn't pass, no telling where the Packers would be today. They might be headed to Milwaukee or LA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: AN OLD PACKER FAN of BROOKFIELD - WHY DO WE ALWAYS FORGET HISTORY. I SAW THE PACKERS PLAY AT STATE FAIR PARK IN MILWAUKEE, WHEN JOHNNY BLOOD MCNALLY, HALL OF FAME, HAD TO BE BAILED OUT OF JAIL FOR SUNDAYS GAME MORE OFTEN THAN NOT. WHEN RAP SHEETS DID NOT PREVENT THE MONSTERS OF THE MIDWAY FROM PLAYING TO THE DELIGHT OF THE FANS. WHEN THROUGHOUT HISTORY THE PACKERS HAD ADORNED AS THEIR HEROES, BLOOD, HORNUNG, LOFTON, DAVENPORT , RISON, AND OTHERS WITH SHADY PASTS. LOMBARDI SAID THAT WINNING IS EVERYTHING AND HE IGNORED THE PLAYFUL ANTICS OF HORNUNG, MCGEE, THURSTON, AND OTHERS. THEIR WAS NO CRITICISM FOR MARCOL WHEN HE WON GAMES. THE FANS DRINK HEARTILY AT THE GAMES AND SOMETIMES BEFORE AND AFTER. THE PLAYERS ARE HELD TO A CERTAIN STANDARD AND TAKE LOSSES PERSONALLY. THE SIGNING OF KOREN ROBINSON WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE NO TALENT ON THE ROSTER WAS CLOSE TO BEING EQUAL TO HIM AS A PLAYER. THIS IS A LAND OF OPPORTUNITY AND GREEN BAY, WI. IS THE HEART AND SOUL OF THAT LAND. MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS THIS. DO THE DEDICATED PACKER FANS WANT A WINNER OR A LOSER? WHY DOES THE SPORTS PRESS CASTIGATE A NEW PLAYER BEFORE HIS FIRST KICKOFF AT LAMBEAU FIELD ? A LOYAL FAN.
A: Cliff Christl - I'd like to believe you. But if you remember watching Blood, you're at least 80 years old. If you were old enough then to know all about his transgressions off the field, you're probably 90 or older today. I don't know that Blood ever had to be bailed out of jail before a game. I have heard that he used to keep a bottle in a brown bag next to a tree in the park where the Packers practiced and he'd sneak a swig every once in awhile. Times have changed. Actually, times have changed since Wolf was in Green Bay. When you're winning, you can get away with things you can't get away with when you're losing. Thanks for all the questions. Good night.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACK TO TOP
© 2006, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. All rights reserved. Produced by Journal Interactive | Privacy Policy.