the_idle_threat
10-09-2006, 11:29 AM
SUNDAY, Oct. 8
Packers-Rams chat transcript
http://www.jsonline.com/graphics/sports/mugs/columns/1cliffchristl.jpg
Cliff Christl
Packer Insider columnist
Cliff answered your questions after the Packers' game vs. St. Louis
Q: William of Evansville - Not to take anything away from Noah Herron but the o-line was opening up some lanes today that Darrell Thompson could have gained positive yardage through. A running back with a couple of moves and perhaps some more speed could have had a field day against the Rams! I think the Packers should go for a big time back in the draft next year before anything else. Your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - William, we'll start with you. Good point. I thought the same thing. I thought Herron looked quick today, ran hard, showed good vision and finished with 106 yards and a 5.3 average. But his long run was 19 and that was on a second-and-15 draw where the element of surprise was a big factor. I thought there were times when he broke into the open field that if he had more speed, he could have gone the distance. Noah Herron had a good game. Take nothing away from him. Moreover, Steven Jackson on the other side isn't a game-breaker, either. But when Ahman Green was in his prime that was how the Packers won games. Ten-yard, 15-yard, 19-yard runs for the average back turned into 60-yard runs on occasion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Lennie Durow of San Diego - Cliff: Thanks for taking our questions. I wasn't able to see todays game (it's difficult to hit the sports bar EVERY Sunday at 10 since we have no natioanl televised Fox games). Anyhow, I saw in the Box scores that Herron was able to get over 100 yrds. What was the reason our third stringer finally was able to get some daylight to the tune of 100yrds? Was it a factor in the Packers satying close on this game?
A: Cliff Christl - I noted in the last question that Herron ran hard and had a good game. I also thought the offensive line blocked better than it had all year. Part of it was that the Packers ran left with success or at the right side of the Rams' defense, where they've had some problems at the end position. But there were some nice holes. I'm guessing that Clifton had a pretty good game. The same for Colledge and Wells. I think that was the side where the Packers made most of their yards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Paul Lindstrom of River Falls, Wi - This team is a joke! I have more confidence in the Wisconsin Badgers than this team. Is there any information you can give me about where to mail my resume for the position of General Manager? The first 5 games of this season clearly shows me this man Thompson and his hand picked coach McCarthy don't have a clue what it takes to build a professional football team. They have over $20 million under the cap - can you do SOMETHING with that money??? The Years of Darkness have begun and I'd like to thank everybody in the Packer front office for this foul up - You guys are No. 1 in my book for termination. Thank You. From a former heavy equipment operator, hoping to be the next General Manager of the Green Bay Packers.
A: Cliff Christl - The Packers aren't very good. This was another game they could have won and didn't. But the more I see of McCarthy, I think he has a chance to be a successful coach. I think he's bucking some tough odds. I don't see him having the personnel to win for three, four, maybe five years and by then he might be gone. So it will be tough for him to succeed. Also, I think Thompson has the right philosophy building through the draft. You might be able to fill in some gaps with free agents. You're not going to win anything meaningful by trying to buy a team. So there are a lot of factors why the Packers aren't winning. Ron Wolf deserves some blame for the 2001 draft. Mike Sherman for some of his personnel moves. Also, Thompson for some of his. But if you want a blunt answer, I think your analysis is also a joke.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Chris of Madison - We played better today, defensively, the we have, but I think the release of Ahmad Carrol hurt us today. Dendy looked to get burned a couple times by the Rams 3rd or 4th receiver. Your thoughts.
A: Cliff Christl - They played Dendy in the slot in the nickel, not at left corner like Carroll. And he certainly didn't play as poorly as Carroll did against Philadelphia. I thought Dendy was ok. Early, it appeared that the Rams were overloading his area and forcing him to fight through bodies and he got picked off on some short to medium throws. But I didn't think the Dendy for Carroll switch had any bearing on the game. I thought the corner who got picked on the most was the Rams' No. 1 pick: Tye Hill. He started due to an injury and got burned on both of Jennings' big catches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Kallie of St. Thomas - Packer DB's seemed to have some trouble with Ram receiver's today however never really gave up any back-breaking receptions. The D as a whole kept it close by refusing the Rams to capitolize on multiple red zone opportunities. When it mattered most Rams D stepped up and made the play in a game that could have went either way. I'm having a tough time blaming this loss on any one individual or unit... I guess that the difference was one team has a winning record and the other doesn't. Can't see the Rams going deep in the playoffs though if they indeed make it. Missing that killer instinct. A solid team would have buried the Pack today, thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - I'm not overly impressed with the Rams, either. I think Bulger is maybe better than I've thought. I think he's a pretty good qb. Not great, but more than just a guy who manages games. But really I thought Marshall Faulk was the key to the Rams' Super Bowl win and the other years when they were really lighting up the scoreboard. I don't think they've been the same team since he went in decline. So I think you're right: They'll only go so far. And they were vulnerable today. For example, they committed 10 penalties to the Packers' four. But, in the end, it all came down to one play and Leonard Little, the Rams' best defender, knocked the ball out of Favre's hands. Tauscher did a good job all day on Little. Little's name was hardly mentioned for being around the ball. But he made the play at the end that won the game. As far as not blaming the game on one individual, it's stupid to ever do that. One player doesn't usually lose a game.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Brad P of Verona - One of your earlier comments said you see more in McCarthy that you like. Could you mention what these things are? My opinion is that it is too early to tell, though his bringing back K Schottenheimer is a red flag.
A: Cliff Christl - I sense that there is some rhyme and reason to his game plans, although I'm not a coach. I think he treats his players like adults and demands some accountability. At the end, I thought Sherman became too much like an overbearing parent. The Schottenheimer hiring doesn't raise a red flag to me. I don't think there are a lot of bad assistants in the NFL. I don't think Schottenheimer is one. What happens more often is that the coaches in a certain area don't complement one another in terms of personality, expertise, etc. That might be the case with the Packers' defensive staff more than anything. I know some people aren't happy if they can't blame everything on a scapegoat, but to say the Packers are 1-4 because of a secondary coach is absurd.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Scott of LA - Cliff, Thea Packers dropped two easy ints today (Hawk & Harris), and Woodson had a chance on another. Two fumbles by the Packer offense, and not take aways. That was the difference. On Rayner's missed FG, did you see if the hold was OK?
A: Cliff Christl - Good point. The defense played better today, but no turnovers. And as you pointed out, Harris, Hawk and Woodson all had their chances. Again, great players win games. Bad players lose games. At the end, Leonard Little -- I wouldn't call him great, but he's a notch below -- makes a play that saves the game. And at the start, Vernand Morency fumbles the ball and gives the Rams their first TD on a 37-yard drive. That's the ballgame. Again, I'll point out the Packers not only don't have playmakers on offense, they don't have any on defense, either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: hank of sussex - AJ Hawk looks slow. A couple of times he came free and was in position to make a tackle for loss, then changed angle and retreated because he knew he couldn't get there. Cause for concern?
A: Cliff Christl - I don't think he looks slow. In fact, I think he pursues and plays well in space. There were some plays today where he recovered and got a piece of a ball-carrier and held on until help came that I thought were pretty good. Sometimes, I think Hawk is slow getting off blocks. As I wrote in camp, he just seems light in the shorts to me. I remember a play today where I saw Orlando Pace run to the second level and just drive Hawk into the ground. Also, Hawk isn't making game-turning plays. He had a chance today to pick off a pass and didn't hang on. And, yes, that is reason for concern. He needs to be a great player for the Packers to make a quick turnabout and he's not that, not yet. Will he be? Time will tell.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Elliott of Madison - Ok, I read your post last week on why you don't believe Jennings is any good because multiple scouts told you "he's as good as he'll ever be". What's the problem with that??? This guy is a football player I don't care about size and speed he gets open and makes plays! Minus the drop today, which every receiver has from time to time, this guy makes plays hense making him a "play-maker". Case closed.
A: Cliff Christl - First of all, I've written since the first minicamp that I've been impressed with Jennings. I think he's a good player. I've written that he's one of the best rookie wide receivers that I've seen. So don't misquote me. Get your facts straight instead of just foaming at the mouth like a fool. And, yes, Jennings made two big plays today. He could have made a third in the third quarter on a slant, but Favre was off target. And Jennings could have made a fourth if it hadn't been for the drop. That, too, was a big play and you can't just excuse it as something all receivers do. Big players make big plays when it counts; they don't drop the ball. But, all in all, Jennings had the best game of any of the Packers' skill players today. He has looked as good as any of them since training camp. But I don't think you have a clue as to what makes a great player. A great player is someone that strikes fear into the opposing team to the point that they design their game plans to stop him. A player that on Monday, when the coaches start looking ahead to the next game and first look at film, say, 'Wow! We have to stop this guy to win.' And if it's a receiver that means, the opposing coaches might decide to always put their best corner on him or to double him or bracket him most of the time, whatever it takes. I'm not sure Jennings has that kind of ceiling. In fact, my sense is that he doesn't. The Packers' coaches and scouts aren't sure. And other NFL scouts must not have thought it or Jennings would have been drafted in the first round. Do I think Jennings will be a productive, very good player for a long time? Sure. Do I think he'll have the impact that Randy Moss had in Minnesota, that Terrell Owens had, that Chad Johnson has had in Cincinnati? I have my doubts. That's the distinction I've made. By the way, did you notice the corner that Jennings beat for his big plays today? I'm guessing not. But it was another rookie starting because of an injury. So before you enshrine Jennings into the Hall of Fame, watch the game and take some of those things into consideration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ron of Charlotte - Packer radio network is reporting that Koren Robinson to be suspended for 1 yr(source is FoxSports) Cliff, Any thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - Hadn't heard that. Again, that's why I think it was a signing that made no sense. I'd just be surprised if the Packers ever get a return on their risk. The guy couldn't stay straight with $12 million at stake in Minnesota. But I've not heard that he'll be suspended. But thanks for the input.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Keith of Flagstaff AZ - A couple of positives...Jennings looked great. He seams to have body control and quiets his body as the ball approaches. Offense seamed to be better at their cut blocks. Do you see this game, even as a loss, a turn around game? The Pack have a bye week and then play some beatable teams. Your comments?
A: Cliff Christl - I agree that Jennings looked good. Again, he plays like he practiced all summer: Plays as fast as he has to, a feel for the game beyond his years, good body control, drop an easy one on occasion, etc. Was this a turn-around game? I don't think so. It was a game that the Packers could have won simply by making maybe just one more play. That was Mike McCarthy's point after the game: "We're not making enough plays right now," he said. My question to you would be: Who is going to make them after the bye? I agree with you to this degree: I sense some improvement in this team from week to week. But will that eventually translate into victories? I'd be surprised this year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dennis Schmidt of Atlanta - "You've got to try to find positives in all these negatives," Favre said. "I wonder, sometimes, what I'm doing here." Cliff, AP just quoted Brett saying this. Time to pull the plug and go with Rodgers, eh?
A: Cliff Christl - I was at the press conference. I don't think that quote reflects the context of what Favre said. But that's part of Favre's undoing in interviews. He rambles and rambles and rambles, so it's hard to decide where to put the quote marks. He hedges everything he says and he did that again today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Randy of Germantown - It appears that every week McCarthy is asserting more of his personality and that he is holding players more accountable. Some have argued that cutting Carroll was premature. From a numbers standpoint that may be a correct statement. However, it seems to me that a message was being sent and that message was reinforced with the benching of Morency in the first half. With a young team that is not going anywhere isn't that message better than we will continue to put up with your antics because we don't have anyone better? What are your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - I agree. Good point. That's part of what I've been impressed with. I need to play Brett Favre here and equivocate. I'm not a coach. That's just a gut feel from watching practice this summer, watching games, watching McCarthy handle himself. Two weeks from now, I may change my opinion. But, to this point, I think he's taking the right approach. And I was a skeptic, particularly during the minicamps and some of the June practices where I saw a team making a lot of mistakes at times. And that doesn't mean I'm still not a skeptic. But I certainly don't think McCarthy is in over his head or to blame for 1-4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jesse of Phoenix - Is Ahman Green done with the Packers? Even if he heals and is able to play any more this year, will he even have a chance to come back next year?
A: Cliff Christl - Good question. The injury he suffered last year has ended careers. McCarthy said last week that Green's hamstring problems were probably related to his surgery. One of the signs of a declining player is that you can't count on him to line up on Sunday. I think that's now the case with Green. Another sign is the inability to make plays. Green really hasn't done that since 2004. As we ponder that maybe that answers your question. I need to take a short break. I'll be back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dan Bushman of Hudson WI - Cliff: Comment on Noah Herron's game - it was great to see the running game look like something, but Herron getting 100 yards feels really "one hit wonder" to me. Were the Rams ripe to run on? Maybe my question would be better for your Packer history question: Name all the Packer running backs to have one or two 100-yeard games before disappearing into Packer history. Hect, didn't Barty Smith even have a few?
A: Cliff Christl - I think the Rams were doing a lot of slanting in the first half and maybe the Packers just had the right calls for it. Also, the Rams looked soft to me at right defensive end. And I think the blocking was better. The bottom line: I don't think you're going to win anything other than a high draft pick with Noah Herron at running back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike of State College - Cliff, Today in the chat you held Moss, Owens, and Johnson as the standard to judge Jennings. I am ok with that, but you named, arguably, the best 2 recievers in the NFL over the last 7-8 years ... and the best one today. I am not sure thats the right standard. How about this, can Jennings play for 8 years, get 1000 yards 5-6 times, and make the pro bowl 1-2 times. If he can, its hard to argue is not a playmaker. And in some respects (and I know NOTHING) I think NFL scouts get too hung up on numbers (look at Carroll and the hundreds of others drafted high on potential). Jennings looks like a great second round pick, and I venture to guess many teams that passed wish they took him.
A: Cliff Christl - I essentially agree. But if your No. 1 receiver isn't going to command that kind of respect from opposing teams, then you might need two Jennings to win a Super Bowl. And I understand that Moss, Owens and Johnson haven't won any Super Bowls. But you either need someone really special -- a Jerry Rice -- or two really good ones, say a Holt and Bruce, if you're going to win a Super Bowl with offense. As I've said before, everybody in the NFL buys the playmaker theory. But they disagree on the number. Some have told me only five, six players in the entire league dictate the course of a season. Others would argue it's more. Here's my only reservation about Jennings. I question if he will ever be good enough to be one of the top 25 to 30 players in the league. And if he's not, then he's not going to be one of the one or two special players that can lead a team to a Super Bowl title. That's the objective here isn't it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Keith of Flagstaff AZ - Cliff, One thing that was disconcerting was how often Favre was off the mark. I counted three potential big plays...One to Robinson (deep post, 1st half), Franks and Jennings. All could have been touchdowns. As this team matures, my hope is they won't leave these points on the field. Hopefully, Favre can regain some form. My follow-up question is today McCarthy seemed to placing the team into good situations where big plays can happen. Do you believe the Packers offense will improve to execute these two or three plays a game to start winning?
A: Cliff Christl - Good observation. Good question. McCarthy said at his press conference that he didn't think the passing game ever found its rhythm. Part of it was Favre being off target. Part of it was the receivers and their routes, according to McCarthy. Favre also mentioned the slant to Jennings and the post to Robinson as bad throws on his part. At the same time, Driver short-armed a ball. And I sat in the stands today just to get a different perspective. And I saw Robinson take his eye off the ball on the pass down the sideline in the fourth quarter rather than risk a collision. So, it was a combination of problems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Brett of Orlando - Cliff, I know you are not a big fan of Herron, but in your mind how does he compare to Tony Fisher? He seems to be a capable backup.
A: Cliff Christl - Fisher and Herron are maybe ok to fill a roster spot, but you don't want to have to play either one. Good backups are players that you can win with. Last week, how many people on this chat were excited about Vernand Morency? A year ago, I had one fan tell me Samkon Gado could be as good as Shaun Alexander. This was one game. Herron played hard, as he always does, and it paid off in some nice stats. But you can't win on a consistent basis or maybe even a ballgame against a good team with him in the lineup.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jordan of Milwaukee, WI - Until those 5-6 special playmakes start having one-on-one games against each other, supporting casts will be very important. You seem to give off the impression that if somebody isn't a "special" player, they're worthless. Having a guy like Jennings on your roster over a guy like Antonio Chatman is very important. I don't disagree that a great team will usually have a #1 receiver better than Driver and Jennings, but Jennings can still be a very valuable player, if utilized properly.
A: Cliff Christl - I think I've written that about Jennings. And I've never said that supporting casts aren't important. They are. If they weren't, Brett Favre would have won more than one Super Bowl. Randy Moss would have won several, etc., etc., etc. And I'm guessing that Jennings will be good enough to start on some future Super Bowl champions. Maybe a team could even win it this year with him as a starter. But to win a Super Bowl, the Packers are going to have to find at least one, maybe two special players who will dictate the outcome of games on a consistent basis: Like in 1996 when they had Favre and White. So, yes, Jennings is good addition. He makes the Packers a better team. He can be a building block, much like Kampman, Tauscher, Clifton of recent years, and a few others. But I don't see him turning the franchise around. I don't see him being one of those two players. And those are the players that are hardest to find. New Orleans has a rookie wide receiver from Hofstra, Marques Colston, a seventh-round draft pick, who until this week at least was playing even better than Jennings. I know some of you are so desperate for something to cling to, something to pin your hopes on -- I'm sure that's why Morency had some fans drooling with excitement last week -- that you can't contain your expectations for Jennings. But I'm just suggesting that you keep what he has accomplished in perspective and keep in mind some of his limitations before deciding that he's destined for Canton.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike of Platteville - Cliff, I didn't get to see the game (save for the last 2 minutes, which I could have missed :), but I had a thought about bringing Favre back this year. You've said something along the lines of Rodgers having to play with this offense right now would retard his development. Perhaps with Favre playing, he's helping develop the young players, which will give Rodgers more to work with when he finally does take over. Other than the Packers wanting Favre back for his marquee value, does that make sense to you, i.e., he's helping develop the young players?
A: Cliff Christl - No question. Even though Favre isn't the quarterback that he was, he can make Jennings look better, for example. Or compensate when the young guards are soft in protection. For example today, Favre said that after he missed Jennings on that slant, Jennings asked him if he had done something wrong on the route. Favre said he told Jennings no. Just that bit of knowledge might help Jennings in the future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: kj of dbq, IA - Cliff, If you had to pick one player, for a team you hope can contend in 2-4 years, would it be hawk or jennings?
A: Cliff Christl - Great question. I think I'd still take my chances on Hawk. I still think he might have the bigger upside. But, to this point, I've been more impressed with Jennings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Joe Momma of Oly, WA - Can't lay this at the feet of the secondary; team played well. Bulger made the plays... Favre didn't particularly in the 3rd qtr. We live and die w/ Favre..when will we give Rodgers a chance to sink or swim?
A: Cliff Christl - I didn't think Favre threw the ball well today. If he throws three or four bad passes on a typical day, he might have doubled that today. But I don't think he was the reason the Packers lost. I think it was a combination of factors. For starters, just look at each quarterback's supporting casts. You can't put a number on it. But how many of Herron's yards do you think were the result of defensive calls made by Rams' coordinator Jim Haslett out of respect for Favre as opposed to the Packers' running game? What would have happened with Rodgers at quarterback today? Nobody knows. But if there was some way of replaying the game with Rodgers in the lineup for Favre, I would bet that the Packers would struggle to score 10 points and that they'd lose by more than three if I was forced to put money on it. And I say that after Favre played maybe his worst game of the season, although he didn't throw any picks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Powerball of East Texas - Cliff- If you were a fan and had a vested interest in the Packers, would would you be more comfortable with coaching the team, McCarthy or Sherman. Has McCarthy made any kind of initial impression so far. I understand the win/loss record is what it is, but when the talent level improves, how do you McCarthy at this point.
A: Cliff Christl - I think Sherman gave the Packers what they needed after Ray Rhodes, from maybe 2000 to 2003. After that, I think he might have started to wear thin. I think McCarthy is maybe giving the Packers what they need now. Somebody asked about red flags before. There is one. It's the number of times the Packers have been caught with 10 or 12 men on the field. That's a reflection on the head coach and McCarthy admitted that today. It happened two or three times again. Get this: The Packers had 12 men on the field on a play when Bulger completed a 17-yard pass. Makes you wonder if the Packers played with 12 all game on defense if they could have won. Maybe not. They still wouldn't have a playmaker. But if McCarthy doesn't get that fixed and soon, he might not be on the job long. That aside, I think he's treating his players more like Holmgren did: Putting the onus on them, but not being suffocating about it. But I wouldn't say at this point that McCarthy is necessarily a better coach than Sherman or that he'll have more staying power. I think the jury is still out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bob Gillies of Mystic CT - I don't get this obsession some folks have with Aaron Rodgers. Doesn't sports work like this: you want someone elses job, you beat them out. Otherwise, you don't play. What am I missing?
A: Cliff Christl - I wonder the same thing. As I said, I sat in the stands today. I walked out as soon as the fumble occurred to go the locker room and the first thing I heard was some fan complaining to another that Favre had lost the game on that last play. Maybe Favre could have stepped up in the pocket. Maybe he didn't throw the ball that well today. But do some people watch anything other than the quarterback? Do they have any clue about other matchups, etc.?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Robert of Costa Mesa, CA - Hi Cliff, your chats are a highlight of my week. I think one major weakness of the last few seasons is that the Packers do not have one player on the defensive line that consistently collapses the pocket or inspires any kind of fear. The quarterback often has all day to throw and the blitzes seem to arrive a beat or two too late--especially on third downs. I know a lot of talk is about the weakness of the secondary, but it seems the lack of a feared pass rush is still the Packer's biggest weakness. Your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - Good point. There were times today where the coverage was better than the rush. At least that's what I sensed. Let's face it. I think if you'd look back in history, most Super Bowl champs had a dominating pass rusher. Reggie White in GB. Lawrence Taylor when the Giants won. The Bears had Dent and also Hampton. Seymour maybe wasn't a dominating pass rusher for the Patriots, but he was an outstanding all-around defensive lineman in a 3-4. Porter was pretty darn good for the Steelers last year. Rice and Sapp for the Bucs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: trevor of greenfield - Cliff you talk about the need for "playmakers" all the time, and I totally agree. Given his play over the past year and a half, is Brett Favre still a "playmaker" in your opinion?
A: Cliff Christl - Great question. He still makes plays. He's probably still the Packers' best player. He's probably the guy opposing defensive coordinators pinpoint each week as the player they have to stop to beat the Packers. But is he one of the elite playmakers in the league, somebody who can win games on occasion with just his individual brilliance? I don't think so. If he was, the Packers wouldn't be 5-16 over their last 21 games. I don't think the Patriots can win the Super Bowl this year because they don't have the supporting cast. But I think they'll still win the division because they have Tom Brady. I don't see the Packers winning anything other than a few games because of Favre. Thanks. Good night.
Packers-Rams chat transcript
http://www.jsonline.com/graphics/sports/mugs/columns/1cliffchristl.jpg
Cliff Christl
Packer Insider columnist
Cliff answered your questions after the Packers' game vs. St. Louis
Q: William of Evansville - Not to take anything away from Noah Herron but the o-line was opening up some lanes today that Darrell Thompson could have gained positive yardage through. A running back with a couple of moves and perhaps some more speed could have had a field day against the Rams! I think the Packers should go for a big time back in the draft next year before anything else. Your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - William, we'll start with you. Good point. I thought the same thing. I thought Herron looked quick today, ran hard, showed good vision and finished with 106 yards and a 5.3 average. But his long run was 19 and that was on a second-and-15 draw where the element of surprise was a big factor. I thought there were times when he broke into the open field that if he had more speed, he could have gone the distance. Noah Herron had a good game. Take nothing away from him. Moreover, Steven Jackson on the other side isn't a game-breaker, either. But when Ahman Green was in his prime that was how the Packers won games. Ten-yard, 15-yard, 19-yard runs for the average back turned into 60-yard runs on occasion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Lennie Durow of San Diego - Cliff: Thanks for taking our questions. I wasn't able to see todays game (it's difficult to hit the sports bar EVERY Sunday at 10 since we have no natioanl televised Fox games). Anyhow, I saw in the Box scores that Herron was able to get over 100 yrds. What was the reason our third stringer finally was able to get some daylight to the tune of 100yrds? Was it a factor in the Packers satying close on this game?
A: Cliff Christl - I noted in the last question that Herron ran hard and had a good game. I also thought the offensive line blocked better than it had all year. Part of it was that the Packers ran left with success or at the right side of the Rams' defense, where they've had some problems at the end position. But there were some nice holes. I'm guessing that Clifton had a pretty good game. The same for Colledge and Wells. I think that was the side where the Packers made most of their yards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Paul Lindstrom of River Falls, Wi - This team is a joke! I have more confidence in the Wisconsin Badgers than this team. Is there any information you can give me about where to mail my resume for the position of General Manager? The first 5 games of this season clearly shows me this man Thompson and his hand picked coach McCarthy don't have a clue what it takes to build a professional football team. They have over $20 million under the cap - can you do SOMETHING with that money??? The Years of Darkness have begun and I'd like to thank everybody in the Packer front office for this foul up - You guys are No. 1 in my book for termination. Thank You. From a former heavy equipment operator, hoping to be the next General Manager of the Green Bay Packers.
A: Cliff Christl - The Packers aren't very good. This was another game they could have won and didn't. But the more I see of McCarthy, I think he has a chance to be a successful coach. I think he's bucking some tough odds. I don't see him having the personnel to win for three, four, maybe five years and by then he might be gone. So it will be tough for him to succeed. Also, I think Thompson has the right philosophy building through the draft. You might be able to fill in some gaps with free agents. You're not going to win anything meaningful by trying to buy a team. So there are a lot of factors why the Packers aren't winning. Ron Wolf deserves some blame for the 2001 draft. Mike Sherman for some of his personnel moves. Also, Thompson for some of his. But if you want a blunt answer, I think your analysis is also a joke.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Chris of Madison - We played better today, defensively, the we have, but I think the release of Ahmad Carrol hurt us today. Dendy looked to get burned a couple times by the Rams 3rd or 4th receiver. Your thoughts.
A: Cliff Christl - They played Dendy in the slot in the nickel, not at left corner like Carroll. And he certainly didn't play as poorly as Carroll did against Philadelphia. I thought Dendy was ok. Early, it appeared that the Rams were overloading his area and forcing him to fight through bodies and he got picked off on some short to medium throws. But I didn't think the Dendy for Carroll switch had any bearing on the game. I thought the corner who got picked on the most was the Rams' No. 1 pick: Tye Hill. He started due to an injury and got burned on both of Jennings' big catches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Kallie of St. Thomas - Packer DB's seemed to have some trouble with Ram receiver's today however never really gave up any back-breaking receptions. The D as a whole kept it close by refusing the Rams to capitolize on multiple red zone opportunities. When it mattered most Rams D stepped up and made the play in a game that could have went either way. I'm having a tough time blaming this loss on any one individual or unit... I guess that the difference was one team has a winning record and the other doesn't. Can't see the Rams going deep in the playoffs though if they indeed make it. Missing that killer instinct. A solid team would have buried the Pack today, thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - I'm not overly impressed with the Rams, either. I think Bulger is maybe better than I've thought. I think he's a pretty good qb. Not great, but more than just a guy who manages games. But really I thought Marshall Faulk was the key to the Rams' Super Bowl win and the other years when they were really lighting up the scoreboard. I don't think they've been the same team since he went in decline. So I think you're right: They'll only go so far. And they were vulnerable today. For example, they committed 10 penalties to the Packers' four. But, in the end, it all came down to one play and Leonard Little, the Rams' best defender, knocked the ball out of Favre's hands. Tauscher did a good job all day on Little. Little's name was hardly mentioned for being around the ball. But he made the play at the end that won the game. As far as not blaming the game on one individual, it's stupid to ever do that. One player doesn't usually lose a game.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Brad P of Verona - One of your earlier comments said you see more in McCarthy that you like. Could you mention what these things are? My opinion is that it is too early to tell, though his bringing back K Schottenheimer is a red flag.
A: Cliff Christl - I sense that there is some rhyme and reason to his game plans, although I'm not a coach. I think he treats his players like adults and demands some accountability. At the end, I thought Sherman became too much like an overbearing parent. The Schottenheimer hiring doesn't raise a red flag to me. I don't think there are a lot of bad assistants in the NFL. I don't think Schottenheimer is one. What happens more often is that the coaches in a certain area don't complement one another in terms of personality, expertise, etc. That might be the case with the Packers' defensive staff more than anything. I know some people aren't happy if they can't blame everything on a scapegoat, but to say the Packers are 1-4 because of a secondary coach is absurd.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Scott of LA - Cliff, Thea Packers dropped two easy ints today (Hawk & Harris), and Woodson had a chance on another. Two fumbles by the Packer offense, and not take aways. That was the difference. On Rayner's missed FG, did you see if the hold was OK?
A: Cliff Christl - Good point. The defense played better today, but no turnovers. And as you pointed out, Harris, Hawk and Woodson all had their chances. Again, great players win games. Bad players lose games. At the end, Leonard Little -- I wouldn't call him great, but he's a notch below -- makes a play that saves the game. And at the start, Vernand Morency fumbles the ball and gives the Rams their first TD on a 37-yard drive. That's the ballgame. Again, I'll point out the Packers not only don't have playmakers on offense, they don't have any on defense, either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: hank of sussex - AJ Hawk looks slow. A couple of times he came free and was in position to make a tackle for loss, then changed angle and retreated because he knew he couldn't get there. Cause for concern?
A: Cliff Christl - I don't think he looks slow. In fact, I think he pursues and plays well in space. There were some plays today where he recovered and got a piece of a ball-carrier and held on until help came that I thought were pretty good. Sometimes, I think Hawk is slow getting off blocks. As I wrote in camp, he just seems light in the shorts to me. I remember a play today where I saw Orlando Pace run to the second level and just drive Hawk into the ground. Also, Hawk isn't making game-turning plays. He had a chance today to pick off a pass and didn't hang on. And, yes, that is reason for concern. He needs to be a great player for the Packers to make a quick turnabout and he's not that, not yet. Will he be? Time will tell.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Elliott of Madison - Ok, I read your post last week on why you don't believe Jennings is any good because multiple scouts told you "he's as good as he'll ever be". What's the problem with that??? This guy is a football player I don't care about size and speed he gets open and makes plays! Minus the drop today, which every receiver has from time to time, this guy makes plays hense making him a "play-maker". Case closed.
A: Cliff Christl - First of all, I've written since the first minicamp that I've been impressed with Jennings. I think he's a good player. I've written that he's one of the best rookie wide receivers that I've seen. So don't misquote me. Get your facts straight instead of just foaming at the mouth like a fool. And, yes, Jennings made two big plays today. He could have made a third in the third quarter on a slant, but Favre was off target. And Jennings could have made a fourth if it hadn't been for the drop. That, too, was a big play and you can't just excuse it as something all receivers do. Big players make big plays when it counts; they don't drop the ball. But, all in all, Jennings had the best game of any of the Packers' skill players today. He has looked as good as any of them since training camp. But I don't think you have a clue as to what makes a great player. A great player is someone that strikes fear into the opposing team to the point that they design their game plans to stop him. A player that on Monday, when the coaches start looking ahead to the next game and first look at film, say, 'Wow! We have to stop this guy to win.' And if it's a receiver that means, the opposing coaches might decide to always put their best corner on him or to double him or bracket him most of the time, whatever it takes. I'm not sure Jennings has that kind of ceiling. In fact, my sense is that he doesn't. The Packers' coaches and scouts aren't sure. And other NFL scouts must not have thought it or Jennings would have been drafted in the first round. Do I think Jennings will be a productive, very good player for a long time? Sure. Do I think he'll have the impact that Randy Moss had in Minnesota, that Terrell Owens had, that Chad Johnson has had in Cincinnati? I have my doubts. That's the distinction I've made. By the way, did you notice the corner that Jennings beat for his big plays today? I'm guessing not. But it was another rookie starting because of an injury. So before you enshrine Jennings into the Hall of Fame, watch the game and take some of those things into consideration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ron of Charlotte - Packer radio network is reporting that Koren Robinson to be suspended for 1 yr(source is FoxSports) Cliff, Any thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - Hadn't heard that. Again, that's why I think it was a signing that made no sense. I'd just be surprised if the Packers ever get a return on their risk. The guy couldn't stay straight with $12 million at stake in Minnesota. But I've not heard that he'll be suspended. But thanks for the input.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Keith of Flagstaff AZ - A couple of positives...Jennings looked great. He seams to have body control and quiets his body as the ball approaches. Offense seamed to be better at their cut blocks. Do you see this game, even as a loss, a turn around game? The Pack have a bye week and then play some beatable teams. Your comments?
A: Cliff Christl - I agree that Jennings looked good. Again, he plays like he practiced all summer: Plays as fast as he has to, a feel for the game beyond his years, good body control, drop an easy one on occasion, etc. Was this a turn-around game? I don't think so. It was a game that the Packers could have won simply by making maybe just one more play. That was Mike McCarthy's point after the game: "We're not making enough plays right now," he said. My question to you would be: Who is going to make them after the bye? I agree with you to this degree: I sense some improvement in this team from week to week. But will that eventually translate into victories? I'd be surprised this year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dennis Schmidt of Atlanta - "You've got to try to find positives in all these negatives," Favre said. "I wonder, sometimes, what I'm doing here." Cliff, AP just quoted Brett saying this. Time to pull the plug and go with Rodgers, eh?
A: Cliff Christl - I was at the press conference. I don't think that quote reflects the context of what Favre said. But that's part of Favre's undoing in interviews. He rambles and rambles and rambles, so it's hard to decide where to put the quote marks. He hedges everything he says and he did that again today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Randy of Germantown - It appears that every week McCarthy is asserting more of his personality and that he is holding players more accountable. Some have argued that cutting Carroll was premature. From a numbers standpoint that may be a correct statement. However, it seems to me that a message was being sent and that message was reinforced with the benching of Morency in the first half. With a young team that is not going anywhere isn't that message better than we will continue to put up with your antics because we don't have anyone better? What are your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - I agree. Good point. That's part of what I've been impressed with. I need to play Brett Favre here and equivocate. I'm not a coach. That's just a gut feel from watching practice this summer, watching games, watching McCarthy handle himself. Two weeks from now, I may change my opinion. But, to this point, I think he's taking the right approach. And I was a skeptic, particularly during the minicamps and some of the June practices where I saw a team making a lot of mistakes at times. And that doesn't mean I'm still not a skeptic. But I certainly don't think McCarthy is in over his head or to blame for 1-4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jesse of Phoenix - Is Ahman Green done with the Packers? Even if he heals and is able to play any more this year, will he even have a chance to come back next year?
A: Cliff Christl - Good question. The injury he suffered last year has ended careers. McCarthy said last week that Green's hamstring problems were probably related to his surgery. One of the signs of a declining player is that you can't count on him to line up on Sunday. I think that's now the case with Green. Another sign is the inability to make plays. Green really hasn't done that since 2004. As we ponder that maybe that answers your question. I need to take a short break. I'll be back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dan Bushman of Hudson WI - Cliff: Comment on Noah Herron's game - it was great to see the running game look like something, but Herron getting 100 yards feels really "one hit wonder" to me. Were the Rams ripe to run on? Maybe my question would be better for your Packer history question: Name all the Packer running backs to have one or two 100-yeard games before disappearing into Packer history. Hect, didn't Barty Smith even have a few?
A: Cliff Christl - I think the Rams were doing a lot of slanting in the first half and maybe the Packers just had the right calls for it. Also, the Rams looked soft to me at right defensive end. And I think the blocking was better. The bottom line: I don't think you're going to win anything other than a high draft pick with Noah Herron at running back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike of State College - Cliff, Today in the chat you held Moss, Owens, and Johnson as the standard to judge Jennings. I am ok with that, but you named, arguably, the best 2 recievers in the NFL over the last 7-8 years ... and the best one today. I am not sure thats the right standard. How about this, can Jennings play for 8 years, get 1000 yards 5-6 times, and make the pro bowl 1-2 times. If he can, its hard to argue is not a playmaker. And in some respects (and I know NOTHING) I think NFL scouts get too hung up on numbers (look at Carroll and the hundreds of others drafted high on potential). Jennings looks like a great second round pick, and I venture to guess many teams that passed wish they took him.
A: Cliff Christl - I essentially agree. But if your No. 1 receiver isn't going to command that kind of respect from opposing teams, then you might need two Jennings to win a Super Bowl. And I understand that Moss, Owens and Johnson haven't won any Super Bowls. But you either need someone really special -- a Jerry Rice -- or two really good ones, say a Holt and Bruce, if you're going to win a Super Bowl with offense. As I've said before, everybody in the NFL buys the playmaker theory. But they disagree on the number. Some have told me only five, six players in the entire league dictate the course of a season. Others would argue it's more. Here's my only reservation about Jennings. I question if he will ever be good enough to be one of the top 25 to 30 players in the league. And if he's not, then he's not going to be one of the one or two special players that can lead a team to a Super Bowl title. That's the objective here isn't it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Keith of Flagstaff AZ - Cliff, One thing that was disconcerting was how often Favre was off the mark. I counted three potential big plays...One to Robinson (deep post, 1st half), Franks and Jennings. All could have been touchdowns. As this team matures, my hope is they won't leave these points on the field. Hopefully, Favre can regain some form. My follow-up question is today McCarthy seemed to placing the team into good situations where big plays can happen. Do you believe the Packers offense will improve to execute these two or three plays a game to start winning?
A: Cliff Christl - Good observation. Good question. McCarthy said at his press conference that he didn't think the passing game ever found its rhythm. Part of it was Favre being off target. Part of it was the receivers and their routes, according to McCarthy. Favre also mentioned the slant to Jennings and the post to Robinson as bad throws on his part. At the same time, Driver short-armed a ball. And I sat in the stands today just to get a different perspective. And I saw Robinson take his eye off the ball on the pass down the sideline in the fourth quarter rather than risk a collision. So, it was a combination of problems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Brett of Orlando - Cliff, I know you are not a big fan of Herron, but in your mind how does he compare to Tony Fisher? He seems to be a capable backup.
A: Cliff Christl - Fisher and Herron are maybe ok to fill a roster spot, but you don't want to have to play either one. Good backups are players that you can win with. Last week, how many people on this chat were excited about Vernand Morency? A year ago, I had one fan tell me Samkon Gado could be as good as Shaun Alexander. This was one game. Herron played hard, as he always does, and it paid off in some nice stats. But you can't win on a consistent basis or maybe even a ballgame against a good team with him in the lineup.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jordan of Milwaukee, WI - Until those 5-6 special playmakes start having one-on-one games against each other, supporting casts will be very important. You seem to give off the impression that if somebody isn't a "special" player, they're worthless. Having a guy like Jennings on your roster over a guy like Antonio Chatman is very important. I don't disagree that a great team will usually have a #1 receiver better than Driver and Jennings, but Jennings can still be a very valuable player, if utilized properly.
A: Cliff Christl - I think I've written that about Jennings. And I've never said that supporting casts aren't important. They are. If they weren't, Brett Favre would have won more than one Super Bowl. Randy Moss would have won several, etc., etc., etc. And I'm guessing that Jennings will be good enough to start on some future Super Bowl champions. Maybe a team could even win it this year with him as a starter. But to win a Super Bowl, the Packers are going to have to find at least one, maybe two special players who will dictate the outcome of games on a consistent basis: Like in 1996 when they had Favre and White. So, yes, Jennings is good addition. He makes the Packers a better team. He can be a building block, much like Kampman, Tauscher, Clifton of recent years, and a few others. But I don't see him turning the franchise around. I don't see him being one of those two players. And those are the players that are hardest to find. New Orleans has a rookie wide receiver from Hofstra, Marques Colston, a seventh-round draft pick, who until this week at least was playing even better than Jennings. I know some of you are so desperate for something to cling to, something to pin your hopes on -- I'm sure that's why Morency had some fans drooling with excitement last week -- that you can't contain your expectations for Jennings. But I'm just suggesting that you keep what he has accomplished in perspective and keep in mind some of his limitations before deciding that he's destined for Canton.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike of Platteville - Cliff, I didn't get to see the game (save for the last 2 minutes, which I could have missed :), but I had a thought about bringing Favre back this year. You've said something along the lines of Rodgers having to play with this offense right now would retard his development. Perhaps with Favre playing, he's helping develop the young players, which will give Rodgers more to work with when he finally does take over. Other than the Packers wanting Favre back for his marquee value, does that make sense to you, i.e., he's helping develop the young players?
A: Cliff Christl - No question. Even though Favre isn't the quarterback that he was, he can make Jennings look better, for example. Or compensate when the young guards are soft in protection. For example today, Favre said that after he missed Jennings on that slant, Jennings asked him if he had done something wrong on the route. Favre said he told Jennings no. Just that bit of knowledge might help Jennings in the future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: kj of dbq, IA - Cliff, If you had to pick one player, for a team you hope can contend in 2-4 years, would it be hawk or jennings?
A: Cliff Christl - Great question. I think I'd still take my chances on Hawk. I still think he might have the bigger upside. But, to this point, I've been more impressed with Jennings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Joe Momma of Oly, WA - Can't lay this at the feet of the secondary; team played well. Bulger made the plays... Favre didn't particularly in the 3rd qtr. We live and die w/ Favre..when will we give Rodgers a chance to sink or swim?
A: Cliff Christl - I didn't think Favre threw the ball well today. If he throws three or four bad passes on a typical day, he might have doubled that today. But I don't think he was the reason the Packers lost. I think it was a combination of factors. For starters, just look at each quarterback's supporting casts. You can't put a number on it. But how many of Herron's yards do you think were the result of defensive calls made by Rams' coordinator Jim Haslett out of respect for Favre as opposed to the Packers' running game? What would have happened with Rodgers at quarterback today? Nobody knows. But if there was some way of replaying the game with Rodgers in the lineup for Favre, I would bet that the Packers would struggle to score 10 points and that they'd lose by more than three if I was forced to put money on it. And I say that after Favre played maybe his worst game of the season, although he didn't throw any picks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Powerball of East Texas - Cliff- If you were a fan and had a vested interest in the Packers, would would you be more comfortable with coaching the team, McCarthy or Sherman. Has McCarthy made any kind of initial impression so far. I understand the win/loss record is what it is, but when the talent level improves, how do you McCarthy at this point.
A: Cliff Christl - I think Sherman gave the Packers what they needed after Ray Rhodes, from maybe 2000 to 2003. After that, I think he might have started to wear thin. I think McCarthy is maybe giving the Packers what they need now. Somebody asked about red flags before. There is one. It's the number of times the Packers have been caught with 10 or 12 men on the field. That's a reflection on the head coach and McCarthy admitted that today. It happened two or three times again. Get this: The Packers had 12 men on the field on a play when Bulger completed a 17-yard pass. Makes you wonder if the Packers played with 12 all game on defense if they could have won. Maybe not. They still wouldn't have a playmaker. But if McCarthy doesn't get that fixed and soon, he might not be on the job long. That aside, I think he's treating his players more like Holmgren did: Putting the onus on them, but not being suffocating about it. But I wouldn't say at this point that McCarthy is necessarily a better coach than Sherman or that he'll have more staying power. I think the jury is still out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bob Gillies of Mystic CT - I don't get this obsession some folks have with Aaron Rodgers. Doesn't sports work like this: you want someone elses job, you beat them out. Otherwise, you don't play. What am I missing?
A: Cliff Christl - I wonder the same thing. As I said, I sat in the stands today. I walked out as soon as the fumble occurred to go the locker room and the first thing I heard was some fan complaining to another that Favre had lost the game on that last play. Maybe Favre could have stepped up in the pocket. Maybe he didn't throw the ball that well today. But do some people watch anything other than the quarterback? Do they have any clue about other matchups, etc.?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Robert of Costa Mesa, CA - Hi Cliff, your chats are a highlight of my week. I think one major weakness of the last few seasons is that the Packers do not have one player on the defensive line that consistently collapses the pocket or inspires any kind of fear. The quarterback often has all day to throw and the blitzes seem to arrive a beat or two too late--especially on third downs. I know a lot of talk is about the weakness of the secondary, but it seems the lack of a feared pass rush is still the Packer's biggest weakness. Your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - Good point. There were times today where the coverage was better than the rush. At least that's what I sensed. Let's face it. I think if you'd look back in history, most Super Bowl champs had a dominating pass rusher. Reggie White in GB. Lawrence Taylor when the Giants won. The Bears had Dent and also Hampton. Seymour maybe wasn't a dominating pass rusher for the Patriots, but he was an outstanding all-around defensive lineman in a 3-4. Porter was pretty darn good for the Steelers last year. Rice and Sapp for the Bucs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: trevor of greenfield - Cliff you talk about the need for "playmakers" all the time, and I totally agree. Given his play over the past year and a half, is Brett Favre still a "playmaker" in your opinion?
A: Cliff Christl - Great question. He still makes plays. He's probably still the Packers' best player. He's probably the guy opposing defensive coordinators pinpoint each week as the player they have to stop to beat the Packers. But is he one of the elite playmakers in the league, somebody who can win games on occasion with just his individual brilliance? I don't think so. If he was, the Packers wouldn't be 5-16 over their last 21 games. I don't think the Patriots can win the Super Bowl this year because they don't have the supporting cast. But I think they'll still win the division because they have Tom Brady. I don't see the Packers winning anything other than a few games because of Favre. Thanks. Good night.