PDA

View Full Version : Cliff's article; 9-26-06; No one scapegoat...



K-town
09-26-2006, 05:51 PM
No one scapegoat for Packers' lack of playmakers
Posted: Sept. 26, 2006

Cliff Christl

Green Bay - In case any of you missed it, Javon Walker caught three passes for 130 yards and scored the two touchdowns that allowed Denver to beat Bill Belichick's New England Patriots Sunday night. A week earlier, it was a reception by Walker that set up Denver's winning field goal in an overtime victory over Kansas City.


The big plays covered 24, 32 and 83 yards. The 24-yarder against the Chiefs came against Ty Law, a Pro Bowl cornerback last year. The 83-yarder against the Patriots came against double coverage.


Three weeks into the season, the Broncos appear to be one of several teams with a legitimate shot at winning the Super Bowl and Walker has emerged as their biggest playmaker.


Those who feel it necessary to blame Mike Sherman for all that ails the Green Bay Packers shouldn't lose sight of that.


It was Sherman who traded up to select Walker with the 20th selection in the 2002 draft. It was Walker's emergence as a playmaker late in 2003 that gave the Packers a real chance at winning their first Super Bowl in six years.


It was the receiving combination of Walker and Donald Driver - they combined for 173 catches, more than 2,500 yards and 21 touchdowns - that allowed Brett Favre to finish with a 30-17 touchdown-to-interception ratio and the Packers to win another division title in 2004, despite a defensive collapse that led to the team's lowest ranking in 21 years.


It was under current general manager Ted Thompson's watch that Walker first threatened a holdout over his contract and then became so disenchanted with the organization, in addition to a personal clash with Favre, that he demanded to be traded and threatened to become a cancer within the locker room if he wasn't.


Of all the players the Packers have lost through free agency or been forced to trade in recent years, Walker was the one who left the biggest hole and probably would have had the biggest impact had he stayed.


In a league where quarterbacks and playmakers matter most, Walker was the only young playmaker on the Packers' roster.


Had he not been lost for the season with a knee injury in last year's opener, he might have made enough plays to win enough of the eight games that the Packers lost by a touchdown or less to keep them in playoff contention.


This year, how much more explosive might the Packers be if they had a receiving corps of Walker, Driver and rookie Greg Jennings? How much would their mere presence in a three wide receiver set open up the running game? How much better would Favre be?


Thompson traded Walker for a second-round draft pick. He parlayed that choice into five picks. Those players turned out to be Daryn Colledge, Will Blackmon, Ingle Martin, Johnny Jolly and Tyrone Culver.


Does anybody believe that it will ever turn out to be an even exchange?


The intent here isn't to blame only Thompson for the current state of the Packers. Or to even second-guess him for the trade. The circumstances involving the Walker mess might have been largely unavoidable and, in the end, trading him might have been the Packers' only recourse.


Nor is the intent here to absolve Sherman of his role in the Packers' decline since the start of last season. His obsession with trying to find the one or two players who might have put the Packers over the top and allowed them to win another Super Bowl while Favre was still in his prime backfired. By trading too many picks during the three years that he ran the draft, Sherman was at least partly responsible for the erosion of the Packers' infrastructure. And as a result, they are not only short on playmakers, but also solid starters.


But Thompson's at fault, too.


He chose to let Mike Wahle, Marco Rivera, Darren Sharper and Ryan Longwell go.


Think about it. How much better would the Packers look on paper with Walker, Wahle and Sharper? Then again, they might only have been good enough to tread water - another two, three years of 10-6 finishes and early exits from the playoffs - before the bottom fell out.


Maybe Thompson's approach will hasten the Packers' rebuilding efforts. After all, it was inevitable after going 13 years without a losing season that the organization would have to rebuild at some point. That's just how the system works in the NFL.


So why not sooner than later?


In truth, neither Thompson nor Sherman is more to blame than the other. Considering he never drafted higher than 20th, Sherman did well with his three first-round picks: Walker, Nick Barnett and Ahmad Carroll. That's a better track record than Ron Wolf ever had over a three-year period with his first-round selections.


It was Sherman who drafted perhaps the Packers' two best defensive players: Aaron Kampman and Barnett. If Walker hadn't been traded, he'd probably be the Packers' best offensive player.


But, you say, Sherman's picks from the second round on down were a disaster?


That's true to an extent.


Besides Kampman, only Scott Wells is starting. Corey Williams is a solid reserve.


But let's go back to Denver and New England, two teams with two of the most respected GM-head coaches in the game: Mike Shanahan and Belichick.


Do you know how many players on Denver's roster Sunday night were taken in rounds two through seven from 2002-'04 drafts? Two and only one starter, running back Tatum Bell. Another, Clinton Portis, was traded for Denver's standout corner Champ Bailey.


You know how many from those drafts played for New England in that game? Five, four of them from the 2003 draft. But only three started: Safety Eugene Wilson, center Dan Koppen and cornerback Asante Samuel. One other, Deion Branch, was recently traded for a first-round draft pick.


True, Belichick and Shanahan drafted better than Sherman over that three-year span, but not by much. And they each had a top 20 pick in that period.


So if you feel compelled to play the blame game at least spread the blame around.

chewy-bacca
09-26-2006, 06:14 PM
imo, it shows just how hard it is to make it to the SB. We were darn close in the 4th and 26 year. that was Shermans shot, he blew his load on that team....they fell short. I guess you cant blam him for tryin.

retailguy
09-26-2006, 06:21 PM
imo, it shows just how hard it is to make it to the SB. We were darn close in the 4th and 26 year. that was Shermans shot, he blew his load on that team....they fell short. I guess you cant blam him for tryin.


But people do, Chewy, but people do...... :roll:

vince
09-26-2006, 06:24 PM
imo, it shows just how hard it is to make it to the SB. We were darn close in the 4th and 26 year. that was Shermans shot, he blew his load on that team....they fell short. I guess you cant blam him for tryin.


But people do, Chewy, but people do...... :roll:
Noone blames him for tryin'. They blame him for failing.

CaptainKickass
09-26-2006, 06:42 PM
Good lord -

Can we all stop living in the world of "What if?"

We're 3 games into this season and Cliff decides to write THIS?

ABSO-FRICKIN-LOUTLEY insane.

:crazy:

retailguy
09-26-2006, 06:58 PM
Good lord -

Can we all stop living in the world of "What if?"

We're 3 games into this season and Cliff decides to write THIS?

ABSO-FRICKIN-LOUTLEY insane.

:crazy:


he's pissed his buddy walker didn't get paid

ahaha
09-26-2006, 07:11 PM
The Packers get their first win and give fans some small measure of excitement and hope for the future. We haven't had that in a while. You'd think, just this once, Christl might find a little something positive to write about. Hell no! Instead we get this article about who is to blame for our woes. Nobody, everybody, we might be on track, we might be in a freefall. It's everybody's fault because they all suck as bad at team management as Billicick and Shanahan. Thanks for the insightful commentary Christl, you pompous jack-ass.

MJZiggy
09-26-2006, 07:20 PM
There is so much I disagree with in that article, I don't even know where to begin.

ny10804
09-26-2006, 07:27 PM
Sherman did well with his three first-round picks: Walker, Nick Barnett and Ahmad Carroll.

I guess you do learn something new every day...

Packnut
09-26-2006, 07:27 PM
Ir-regardless of personel feelings, the fact is the Packers would be a better team right now with Walker. Anyone who denies that is totally football ignorant. TT blew this one big time and the FACTS speak for themselves. Walker made Denver a better team and that's a FACT!

PTPaQ
09-26-2006, 08:19 PM
LoL This guy is living in some kind of dream world. Why is he constantly whining about stuff that could not be helped, stuff that anyways done and over with? Imagine if we had Sharper and Whale? Imagine if Sherman didnt blow our cap money that would be used to resign them, on complete BUSTS. Imagine if Sherman could find us more then 2-3 above average players out of all his years of drafting.

Also if we hadnt of traded Javon Walker, we probably wouldnt of drafted Greg Jennings, therefore most likely go into the season with the Javon/Driver/Ferguson trio, so i doubt we would be seeing a Javon/Driver/Jennings core.

"Thompson traded Walker for a second-round draft pick. He parlayed that choice into five picks. Those players turned out to be Daryn Colledge, Will Blackmon, Ingle Martin, Johnny Jolly and Tyrone Culver.


Does anybody believe that it will ever turn out to be an even exchange?"

Turn out this year? No. I dont think ANYONE would argue that.

Daryn Colledge could be our future LT if he continues to progress, that ALONE would be worth it (if he turns out). Will Blackmon was a HUGE sleeper, he can turn out to be a big time corner for us.

Of course that is full of "if's", but so is his entire article.

SD GB fan
09-26-2006, 08:21 PM
i like how cliff didnt mention walkers countless drops before his plays against a weak NE secondary.

Lurker64
09-26-2006, 09:23 PM
Thompson was prepared to take Colledge at number 37, but then the wheeling and dealing started. If he didn't obtain a second 2nd round pick for Walker, he probably would have still taken Colledge at number 52 if he was still there. That would have probably meant no Jennings, or alternatively Jennings and Colledge but no Hodge, depending on what other teams draft boards were.

So you can't just say that you got College and a bunch of bodies for Walker, you got College, the ability to draft Jennings as well, and the rest of those guys.

I'm pretty certain we wouldn't have had Jennings if we didn't get that extra second round pick, as I understand it some other teams had him ranked as the top receiver on their board.

vince
09-26-2006, 09:33 PM
Ir-regardless of personel feelings, the fact is the Packers would be a better team right now with Walker. Anyone who denies that is totally football ignorant. TT blew this one big time and the FACTS speak for themselves. Walker made Denver a better team and that's a FACT!
Nut, were the Eagles a better team last year with TO? But he's a great player...? If you think that Walker would not have been a cancer to this young football team, then YOU are ignoring the FACTS. And they speak for themselves, right?

FritzDontBlitz
09-27-2006, 04:57 AM
yeah, sure. green bay would have been a better team with walker on the roster refusing to play.

woodbuck27
09-27-2006, 07:00 AM
There is so much I disagree with in that article, I don't even know where to begin.

Get busy MJ.

I really am interested in exactly what your criticisms will be? Seriously, enlighten us with your insight. Please.

GO PACK GO ! FAITH Vs. "the Eagles" calls for an excellent game plan.

SudsMcBucky
09-27-2006, 07:55 AM
Of course that is full of "if's", but so is his entire article.

We call all play the "what if" game. Let me try. What if the Pack had lost 2 more games last year? We could have gotten Reggie Bush. What if we don't win any more games this year? We could get Calvin Johnson. What if we were able to hold on 4th and 26? We could have won another SB. What if Sherman went for it on 4th and 1? We might not have seen 4th and 26! What if the Packers change their "G" logo? A lot of people might be hospitalized.

There, that was fun.

Bretsky
09-27-2006, 08:15 AM
Of course that is full of "if's", but so is his entire article.

We call all play the "what if" game. Let me try. What if the Pack had lost 2 more games last year? We could have gotten Reggie Bush. What if we don't win any more games this year? We could get Calvin Johnson. What if we were able to hold on 4th and 26? We could have won another SB. What if Sherman went for it on 4th and 1? We might not have seen 4th and 26! What if the Packers change their "G" logo? A lot of people might be hospitalized.

There, that was fun.

Now that was painful to read; I've blacked out much of that from my memory :wink:

RashanGary
09-27-2006, 09:07 AM
Fair artical IMO...

I don't think Sherman did a very good job but then again, he always drafted late and hit big on his highest *low* picks. Even Carroll might be a good starter at a hard position. I like his toughness alot and Kampman is one of the Packers most dominate players.

This artical was written with a similar perspective to most of his work IMO. He is taking a (what has happened so far) approach. He's not projecting the future. He's not looking at what could happen but rather what has happened. If I had to use one sentence to sum up what Christl was trying to convey in this artical I would say "How the Packers went from 13 winning seasons to one of the worst in franchise history". I think he did a pretty good job relaying the past in relation to todays success without any real agenda and really found some gray area between the extremests here; TT lovers *Me, Shadow and others* and Sherm lovers *Retail Guy, Tank and others*. I think his discription has been better than most of ours, more complete and of course better organized.

There was a little issue with the depth of the team heading into last off season. He placed that squarely on Shermans shoulders but also looked at it in the context of where he was drafting. I think that is a pretty fair analysis of what happened over Shermans years and why losing 4 starters hurt so badly. NE lost a bunch and they are still competitive.

Thompson came in with his "big picture" approach. When speaking of managing a roster, big picture is just another way of saying "'m focused on winning the most games over the long haul" Sherman had the attitude of "I'm looking to win the most game right now" Both seem pretty extreme in polar opposite directions. I don't know that any GM traded as many picks away as Sherman did during his years and I don't know that many gave up as many guys who can play now or traded down as TT has during the last 2 years.

Christl tied together how Shermans *not all his fault, he had bad draft position* actions effected the depth and how Thompsons lack of regard for today effected the record and current state of the GB Packers. As far as describing what has happened up to this point, he did a better job than most and also left out pretty much any personal opinions or agendas. I guess his playmaker theory is kind of an agenda or belief but I believe in it so I can't call it a problem. I just think it's good understanding of sports.

As far as I'm concerned, I will judge Thompson over the long haul. Sherman made some good choices but he made more bad IMO. Thompson came in with a polar opposite attidude and he just let all the short term prospects go while Sherman held on to them for his dear life. It was a very harsh transition and had we known Thompsons intentions from teh start, it could have been predicted or expected. Now, we let Thompson live out his tenure and in 3 or 4 years Cliff will write something about where the Packers are then. What will be included in that story? I as a cocky fan have my thoughts and I see a good future. But I respect Cliffs approach hsi ability to not project any hopes, disappointments or agendas in his writing.

He did a good job of telling us what happened and because he knows his limits, he didn't even touch on where we're going.

run pMc
09-27-2006, 09:29 AM
Thompson traded Walker for a second-round draft pick. He parlayed that choice into five picks. Those players turned out to be Daryn Colledge, Will Blackmon, Ingle Martin, Johnny Jolly and Tyrone Culver.

Does anybody believe that it will ever turn out to be an even exchange?


Tough to gauge, since they all play different positions. If half of these draft picks pan out into starters or quality backups, it's not a bad deal. Think about MIN getting a #2 for Culfumbler, and TT's deal looks pretty good.



The intent here isn't to blame only Thompson for the current state of the Packers. Or to even second-guess him for the trade. The circumstances involving the Walker mess might have been largely unavoidable and, in the end, trading him might have been the Packers' only recourse.

He should remember that when he starts whining about no JWalk.


Sherman was at least partly responsible for the erosion of the Packers' infrastructure. And as a result, they are not only short on playmakers, but also solid starters.

Exactly. If we had more depth, GB wouldn't have fallen quite so far last year and be looking at such a big rebuild job. Also, having better talent might have given GB better leverage dealing with JWalk.

Short-term, it's a real shame he was traded...he's a playmaker. Between his age, injury, attitude, and salary demands, it might not have been in the best long-term interests to keep him. The money he wanted could be used to sign or lock-up some other players.

The JWalker trade was as much about rebuilding roster depth and managing the salary cap as it was maintaining good chemistry on a young team.

run pMc
09-27-2006, 09:38 AM
As far as the rest of Cliff's comments, some are on & some aren't...typical CC. Comparing Sherman to Shanahan & Belichick is interesting.

Shanahan has made a lot of bad draft picks (Marcus Nash, Willie Middlebrooks, Ashley Lelie, Maurice Clarett), had a few good picks (Al Wilson, DJ Williams, last year's DB's), and in between has benefited from a better defense and (last year) a very good year by Plummer and far less injuries than GB had to suffer through.

I didn't think Belichick did the drafting...I though Scott Pioli did. Anyway, the sportwriters have been falling over themselves for years, complimenting his genius & his ability to 'coach up' street players.

Given the choice, who would you pick as the best coach of the 3? I don't think many people would pick Sherman.

prsnfoto
09-27-2006, 09:51 AM
Ir-regardless of personel feelings, the fact is the Packers would be a better team right now with Walker. Anyone who denies that is totally football ignorant. TT blew this one big time and the FACTS speak for themselves. Walker made Denver a better team and that's a FACT!

Just like the eagles were a awesome team with Owens on their roster didn't they win five SB in a row with him? All you need to know about Chrissy's credibility is that he thinks Barnett is the best defensive player what a moron the way he is playing he is maybe the 5th best player. Bottom line Walker is gone Jennings looks good and asshole walker was good only one out of 5 years Jennings will surpass that in 2.