Bretsky
10-31-2006, 08:00 AM
SUNDAY, Oct. 29, chat transcript
Cardinals-Packers
Cliff Christl
Packer Insider columnist
Cliff answered your questions after the Packers' game against the Arizona Cardinals at Lambeau Field.
Q: Chad of Minneapolis - Cliff - What in the world was McCarthy thinking with the fake field goal. The o-line had actually been opening holes for once on that drive, and he doesn't show confidence in them to go for it on 4th and 1?
A: Cliff Christl - Chad, we'll start with you. He said after the game it was a dumb decision on his part. And as he said, if you're going to go with the fake, do it in on fourth-and-six, not fourth-and-one. But what would have been wrong with kicking a field goal? It would have been a 42-yard attempt. I still think, you get the points on your first opportunity. Get the lead.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Local Crackpot of LaLa Land - Cliffy, What has gotten into Faver and Green? thney are playing like they think it is 2002? Don't they know they are washed up?
A: Cliff Christl - Those are the two guys that have been their prime-time players in the past. If they can keep it going, the Packers can keep winning. They can't win if Favre and Green aren't making plays. But they've made them for two straight games. Then again, they also played two one-win teams that were really in ruts. The Dolphins had lost three straight; the Cardinals six straight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike Winkle of Chicago - Hi Cliff, My take on today's game is the Packers beat up on a rookie QB that is leading a really bad team, perhaps the worst in the NFL. No doubt I will take the win, but is it possible to judge whether this team is making progress looking at a game like this?
A: Cliff Christl - I think it's obvious they're making progress. I think there were people who thought that the Packers might be one of those one-win teams right now. That they're better than the dregs of the league is progress. I admit I was surprised at how bad the Cardinals looked. I knew they were missing Fitzgerald. In their three wide receiver sets, which they use a good share of the time, they're replacing Fitzgerald with 5-8, 171-pound Troy Walters. That's a huge dropoff. That's almost like replacing Randy Moss with Antonio Chatman. And I knew that the Cardinals haven't been able to really take advantage of those two receivers because of quarterback, tight end and o-line problems. But I thought maybe Leinert would be more advanced than most rookie qbs because he played at USC in a pro-style offense against top competition. But he doesn't throw the ball downfield. It's all checkdowns and some crossing stuff. I asked somebody during the post-game interviews if they had seen him throw deep much on film going into the game. They said some, but not much. If Leinert can't make plays deep down the middle -- which was one of the scout's concerns going into the draft -- or stretch a defense vertically down the sideline, he's going to have a tough time making it as an NFL qb. I'm guessing the Packers just squeezed their defense against him and that other teams have been doing the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave of Milwaukee - Hey Cliff, you've been off the mark and pretty poor with your coverage for years. How do you explain the Journal not firing you?
A: Cliff Christl - Then, why are you participating in this chat and reading what I write? Are you a sucker or a hypocrite?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Greg Bissy of Long Island - Cliff, How did Al Harris do today? Hehad some glaring mistakes again this week. However, Boldin appeared to be a non-factor today. Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - He shut down Boldin. Shadowed him all day and held him to 4 catches for 47 yards. He had a late hold that led to a meaningless TD. And I realize Bolden had a couple of drops early and a rookie qb who looks like he has a suspect arm. But Boldin might be a top 10 receiver. Other than the almost meaningless holding call, what else did Harris do wrong?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave Gray of Spokane, WA - Cliff, I can't recall Favre ever doing a Lambeau Leap--Holmgren forbade it to prevent injury, and Favre hasn't scored a TD in five years. After all these years, was this really his first one?
A: Cliff Christl - Don't know. Don't really pay attention. I'm usually writing notes after a score or trying to see a replay up in the press box.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Arthur of Germantown - How good is the Packers' offensive line? How bad is the Cardinals' defensive line? Putting up two 100 yard running backs in the NFL would seem to be pretty rare and an impressive accomplishment.
A: Cliff Christl - It sure was. The Packers hadn't had two backs go over 100 yards since the Snow Ball against Tampa Bay 21 years ago. So it doesn't happen often, at least not in Green Bay as of late. I think the line is much improved. I think Wells has played well all year, and I'm guessing the two rookie guards probably had their best game so far. The Cardinals came into the game ranked 18th against the rush. Not good, but not terrible. They played a lot of five-man line, which was designed to stop the run. And they still couldn't. I wonder what their emotion level was. They looked like a team that has thrown in the towel or is just waiting for Denny Grenn to get fired.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave of Boise - It's nice to see them win even if it's against a 1-6 team. McGinn talked about what this team needs in the future and he commented the DL is probably OK. While they had a few sacks again today they are not getting pressure. There is no "playmaker" on the line disrupting when it counts. Our pass defense gets blamed for breakdowns but could it be the DL is giving opponents QB's way too much time? I thought Arizona's OL was a mess, they continually gave Lineart all day in the pocket. Our ground game kept Arizona's offense off the field and we had a good day for once. I see DL as a top priority in the offseason if this team wants to get back in the playoffs soon. Outside of that it's fun to get the W!
A: Cliff Christl - I thought the pass rush was sporadic today. A few times, it was almost like a jail break. Kampman had another multi-sack game. KGB put some heat on at times against a good left tackle. But there were times when Leinart had all day to throw, although he couldn't find anybody to throw it to. I don't know if that was the coverage or him. Anyway, the defensive line has three good starters in Kampman, Pickett and KGB. All three probably would start for most teams in the league. KGB and Pickett were rated 23 and 24 at their respective positions by PFW coming into this season. Kampman was 29th and, no doubt, he'd move up in the rankings now. So that tells you, those three guys are better than about one-third of the starters at their positions and better than just about everybody's No. 2. Plus, the Packers are pretty deep there. Lately, Johnny Jolly is starting to do some good things. I think Montgomery has had two good games in a row. What the Packers lack is a stud, a Pro Bowl caliber lineman. A Freeney, a Julius Peppers, a Jason Taylor and there are a few others. But those guys are rare. Most teams don't have one and, often, they're top 10 or top five draft picks. So I wouldn't call that a position of need unless the Packers could get a great player there, even a tackle, a Tommie Harris, for example. By the way, last week, somebody said they saw Kampman lining up at tackle on the same side as KGB. I didn't spot it and asked the person if he was sure. Well, my guess is that he was right because they did it today. There was at least one play where Kampman lined up as the right defensive tackle, next to KGB, and Pickett was on the outside and Jolly inside on the other side. Kampman also got one of his sacks rushing from the inside. Kampman said they were trying to get some different matchups, throw some different things at a rookie qb. But I'm also guessing the coaches now view Kampman as one of their best defensive players and are trying to get him in better position to make plays, to use him more as a weapon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Matt of Colfax - Thanks for the chats, Cliff. I enjoy your work. What do you make of the point-of-view that having Favre directing the offense at this point in time is helpful in the development of the young players (other than Rodgers). His leaderhsip can be a stabilizing facotr for the rookie receivers, lineman, and new additions in the backfield.
A: Cliff Christl - No question. Both McCarthy and Jagodzinski said after the game that Favre made several checks at the line that led to key plays, particularly in the red zone. The Packers are winning. There's nothing better for a young player than to win and gain confidence. That's half the battle sometimes. I doubt if the Packers would be winning without Favre. So I'd say it's extremely important.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mark of Minneapolis - Nice job!!!!how did the team fare visa vis injuries?Thanks
A: Cliff Christl - They had several guys limp off late. Driver with an ankle. Morency with a lower back. Miree with an elbow. Collins with cramps. David Martin apparently hurt his jaw. McCarthy said he didn't know if any of the injuries were serious, but also said Martin, Miree and Morency were still being checked out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Matt of Eau Claire - Thanks for he chats, Cliff. If the season ended today, what do think the Packers' top needs would be? Finding "Stud" players on both sides of the ball is obvious but what other gaps do you think are a priority? Thanks!
A: Cliff Christl - I think they're pretty solid across the board with decent depth. They have a lot of good players or at least young players with promise. They're going to have to address their cornerback situation. That's a dangerously thin position and one that's growing old fast. Running back is another position that will need to be addressed. They're getting up there in years at offensive tackle. They're going to have to find a left tackle maybe sooner than later. But I think what they really need are just a few special players: A great wide receiver or running back; great pass rusher; and a Pro Bowl corner. That is if Favre plays again. But finding great players can take years, decades.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Corey of Quakertown PA - (Second try) Cliff I love your objectivity and your historical perspective. Soooo we are now officially in rebuild and it does not really hurt that bad!?!? I am interested in your perspective of the TT approach versus other the past 15 years. I recall Dave Wannsteads first year with the Bears. That team was done!!!!! But the team over acheived and not only made the playoffs they won a first round game. I think that set the table for a bad run for him in Chicago. So next week at this time the Pack could be 4-4 and could easily have beaten the Saints and Rams. How do you think this teams over acheiving with effect our rebuilding process/timeline??
A: Cliff Christl - Good question. But I don't know that anybody knows the answer. You see young players improving week to week, you see a team that's looking sharper by the week. That all speaks well for the future. But for the past two weeks, Favre and Green made the biggest difference in addition to Woodson's interception last week. So Favre goes or Green goes, the Packers could be starting over and a lot worse next year. Then again, if the young players keep getting better and the Packers hit it in the draft next year with their top pick and Favre comes back, maybe they could battle for the playoffs. But the bottom line is that the higher the draft pick, the better your odds of striking it rich. And, again, the NFL system is designed to make it tough on teams that win. So, say, the Packers finish 9-7 this year, which I wouldn't bet on. But let's just say they do. Come draft time, they'll get punished for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tom Lynum of Stillwater, MN - I realize after two wins and a couple cups of coffee, I'm rather exciteable, but when I look at the remaining schedule, 8-8 isn't unreasonable. I figure wins over Buffalo, Jets, SF, and Detroit. Then you just have to shoplift one of the Viking games with losses to Seattle, NE and Chicago. Is that realistic or should I start putting some firewater in my coffee??
A: Cliff Christl - I wouldn't get too excited until they play a good team. Then again, even Seattle might be beatable if it doesn't have Hasselbeck or Alexander. I think next week will be tough. The Bills have a darn good running back, the No. 3 ranked defense in the league coming into this week. And I get the sense that Donte' Whitner, the Bills' rookie safety from Ohio State, the guy all the so-called experts thought was a reach at No. 8 might be playing better than any of the other four defensive players taken in the top 10 in last spring's draft. I realize the Packers are going to have another huge edge at qb: Favre over Losman. But my advice would be to temper your enthusiam at least through next week. Plus, the Packers have stayed relatively healthy. Their biggest loss so far is Robert Ferguson. Big deal. You see all these other teams that started out hot and have been sliding and you look at their injury list and you know why. Seattle and Cincinnati have been hit with injuries to key people. Ditto for San Diego and Jacksonville, although they won today. I don't know if they got back people back or what or just rose to the occasion. But I think that's a big reason why the Packers keep improving. They're pretty healthy. And if they stay healthy, they'll win some more games, maybe even five of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Powerball of East Texas - Cliff, It's been said or written that Ingle Martin didn't really show a whole lot in training camp. Is that in he didn't show a lot period. How did he stack up against Hasselback in Hasselbacks first camp? I was listening to Hasselback earlier this year on Inside The NFL and he was asked who might have drafted a really good QB in the later rounds and he said Martin without hesitation. If Martin is able to stick around for 3 or 4 years does he have any potential?
A: Cliff Christl - He wasn't Josh Hueppel. Is that the correct spelling? Hueppel might have been the worst qb I've ever seen when he was in the Packers minicamp or training camp a few years back. But, boy, Martin didn't show much. His accuracy left a lot to be desired. I can't imagine him ever being anything other than a backup. But players surprise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: MikeB of Apple Valley, MN - Any emotional tirades from Denny in the post-game interviews?
A: Cliff Christl - I didn't go to the Arizona locker room. I heard one writer say that he offered another 10 bucks if he'd ask Green if the Packers were the team he expected them to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mad Dog of Texas - Cliff- I get the idea that you need talent to win, but I am just not with you on this kick that you can only win if you have a "special difference maker on your team", as in 2 superstars and 51 chumps gets it's done. Was there any "special difference makers" in last years Super Bowl and if so who were they? And who are the top 5 difference makers in the NFL this year. You only have to name four because we already know Ulacher is the captain of your universe. who are the other four in the entire NFL right now. I am curious because if your theory is correct, then one of these 5 players will be playing in the Super Bowl this year. I think the NFL is far more about the team than any other sport, but you seem to disagree. If that's the case then you should be able to give up the diffference makers names and see if they translate into a Super Bowl win this year. If you are going to write atricles that coaches and assistants and 51 out of 53 players are a non factor, then you should at the very least give the names of the players who are far bigger than the team itself.
A: Cliff Christl - First of all, as is often true in your case, you either can't read, you like to exaggerate or you don't get the facts straight. For starters, I've never said that you can win with two playmakers and 51 chumps. I've pointed out that it's important to have good players at every other position. How many times have I written bad players lose games? That's what kills the Cardinals. They have two special playmakers in their wide receivers and one of the top running backs in the game. But they haven't had a quarterback who can get them the ball, an offensive line that can block and a tight end who can do anything. Larry McCarren, who studies a lot of film, said today that the Cardinals' tight ends are just killing their running game. The Cardinals have three or four starters on offense who are dreadful or close to it, and one of them might be their qb. So they can't win with Boldin, Fitzgerald and James, three of the most explosive players in the game. What you need to have to win is one to three great players and good players everywhere else. No weak links. That's what the Patriots had. Tom Brady, maybe the best qb in the game. Richard Seymour, maybe one of the four or five best defensive linemen. And each year that they won a Super Bowl, they had one or two others who came close to playing at that level. Harrison one or two years; Ted Washington one year; the kicker maybe. They also had no weaknesses. But you take Brady off those teams and they don't win one Super Bowl. Just look at their record before Brady took over. With Pittsburgh, I think they won with defense and had two special players, Polamalu and Porter. Then, on offense, they had Hines Ward, who was ranked the sixth best receiver in the game coming into this year by PFW. Plus, Roethlisberger and Parker got hot. You think the Steelers would have won the Super Bowl with Charlie Batch and the same team otherwise? That's why they never won one before under Cowher. He never had a qb. But I still think if Carson Palmer hadn't gotten hurt, the Steelers wouldn't have been in the Super Bowl because Palmer, along with his receivers, were better. So who might win this year? No team is going to win without a special player or two. The Colts have Manning. The Bears have Urlacher. The Patriots have Brady. Carolina has Smith and Peppers. Denver has Champ Bailey, plus those linebackers and now Walker. San Diego has a batch: Tomlinson, Gates, Merriman and Jamal Williams. The Giants have Strahan and Barber and Shockley and Eli seems to be emerging. The Falcons have Vick. The Eagles have McNabb and Westbrook. I don't see Seattle winning because Alexander and Hasselbeck are hurting. That's a team that I think will prove my point. They lose two-thirds of what got them there last year -- the trio of Alexander, Jones and Hutchinson -- and they struggle early. Now, they lose their game manager, Hasselbeck, and they're really in trouble. The Chargers' get hit with the Merriman thing. McCarthy and Jagodzinski talk about the importance of playmakers all the time. I've never met anybody in the NFL who doesn't subscribe to the theory that you have to have special players to win. Did you ever play sports in your life? The teams with the best players have the advantage all the time. Now, do they always win. No. Because sometimes they're surrounded by too many bad players. That's why injuries matter so much. Lose your playmaker and you're done. Lose a good player and replace him with a bad player and it can haunt you, too. But those good players can sometimes be replaced if it's just one or two. Great players can't be replaced. The Colts lose Manning; they're done. I can't imagine that you agree with that. Here's what people in the game have always told me. There are anywhere from a half-a-dozen to maybe 25 or 40 special players. The number is something people disagree on. And out of those players, the ones who stay healthy and stay at the top of their game will be the ones who make plays down the the stretch and lead their teams to the Super Bowl. Then there are hundreds of good players. Maybe 500, 700. Some fit a team or a system better than others, but they're all pretty interchangeable. Then, there are maybe 50, 100 or so players who shouldn't be starting. And if you have too many of those, it's going to kill you. Why do you think the Cowboys won? Aikman, Smith, Irvin and, for awhile, Sanders. They had four of the greatest players of the era. That's why they were a dynasty. Why did the Packers win in '96? They had Favre, White, Butler. Remember, they had a good player in Robert Brooks, a guy who caught 100 passes the year before. But he got hurt and they replaced him. Players like that are replaceable. Favre and White weren't. Lose either one of them and the Packers were done. Why didn't the Packers win in the other years that they had Favre, White and Butler? Early, it was because the Cowboys had better. In the couple years after, White wasn't the same player. Plus, the Packers had no weaknesses in '96. They had some before; they had some after. In '97, they had Wilkins starting at defensive end. He killed them in the Super Bowl. I know I've gone on and on here. But my opinion is based strictly on what I've been told by some of the top coaches and personnel people in the game. I've never met one who didn't buy into the playmaker theory. So it shocks me when somebody questions it. But maybe you're right. And Bill Walsh, Ron Wolf, Paul Brown, Jim Finks, Tom Landry, Don Shula and I could go on and on and on -- with the list of people I interviewed for a book on the draft 20 some years ago -- were all wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Don of Torrington, CT - Hi Cliff - I tried to pay attention to Hawk today, and I saw what you were saying the last couple of weeks in your writing...that he is alittle light. On the goal line stand at the end of the first half, he was in the hole, but basically got run over. He seems to be in the right place at the right time, but just not stout enough to really stuff anyone. How do you think he is coming along?
A: Cliff Christl - I think he's a good player. Active. Moves better than most of the LBs in the game. Excellent in space. But I don't see a real explosive player: Somebody blowing up people in the hole, running over blockers on the blitz.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Randy G of Milwaukee - Cliff, I've lived in Wisconsin for 52 years, and drive semi all over. Used to be a packer fan until '94 when they pulled out of playing in Milwaukee. Some of my Cheesehead friends called me after the Pack game and said the Pack has won two games now, and now have this disillusioned idea that the Packers will go either to the playoffs or the Super Bowl. My question to you is, I know that the holiday season is fastly approaching, but do you think these cheeseheads got into the cooking Sherry a little bit too early, and that is what is making them goofy in thinking the Pack will go to the Super Bowl?? Thanks, and Gooooooooo...Bears!!!!!
A: Cliff Christl - The Packers aren't going to the Super Bowl. I think there's little chance that they'll make the playoffs. But if Ahman Green keeps running like he is, they could surprise some teams.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ben of Toronto - Hi Cliff, in response to your question to Greg Bissy of Long Island, as to what else did Harris do wrong...I have to say that he played ok, but missed early in the game on a potential interception and score. I count two of those for him this year, the other being against the Rams - two very, very big misses. No way he should get any sort of revamped, re-negotiated contract. Thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - You're right. I forgot about that one. Dropped interception on the third play of the game. Against a better team that could have been a killer. But he still played a good game. Is he worth more money? I'd be reluctant because he'll be 32 at the end of the season. But what happens if they lose him? It's not Charles Woodson that they're putting on the other team's best receiver every play? It's Harris. Just remember, when I talk about bad players, a bad corner can kill you maybe more than any other positon except qb.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Sam of Chicago - HI Cliff, thanks for your time. I know that you say you are not a fan, but do you enjoy watching certain players at least? Or is it all strictly professional? I know part of this is my sentimentality for the Pack, but I love watching Driver play regardless of where he is on the talent meter of scouts around the league. He is all heart and is truly inspirational. And watching Brett literally brought tears to my eyes today. He is laying it all on the line for a team that he had to have known was going to stink this year, yet made no demands to be traded or released. It is fun watching players like that give back what some of us as true fans give to our favorite teams.
A: Cliff Christl - I appreciate greatness. Take away the great players and the game wouldn't be the same. But I don't get maudlin over it. I used to admire the skills of Randy Moss when he was in Minnesota, just as much as Brett Favre's. I also respect the efforts of players like Driver. But most players in the NFL give great effort. Really, it comes down to having a job to do and I don't think you can be emotional and do my job well. At least, I"ve never seen an emotional sportswriter that didn't let it affect his work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: David of Savage, MN - Cliff, Thanks for the chat. If and when ARod takes over for Brett,whether it is next year or the year after, do you think he will be better prepared, at that time, having merely held a clipboard on game day for the next one or two years and developed only in practice versus being thrown into the fire so to speak, sooner and have to suffer through the inevitable struggles he would surely have on the field? Thanks, I'll hang up and listen.
A: Cliff Christl - I don't think that matters as much as whether the ability and all the intangibles are there. If he's got it, he'll be a good qb. If not, he won't be. Is this hurting or helping his development? I don't know if anybody knows the answer. The only thing I'd say that would have hurt him is if the coaches had played him and he hadn't earned it. The other players have to have confidence in a qb and respect him. By the way, why no questions the last two weeks about Favre and why the Packers haven't stuck a fork in him. Wasn't that the line of one chatter not long? Amazing how people spout opinions, but then run and hide when they're wrong. Isn't it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ann of Amherst, NH - Cliff, I don't want to belabor the "playmakers" theory, I basically agree with you. The only observation that I would make is that, because it takes virtually ALL NFL players time to mature in their pro game, SOMETIMES it seems as if teams win w/out a playmaker -- because it's only further down the road that a player is finally established as a playmaker. Case in point: Tom Brady. One Super Bowl -- they pulled it off w/ Belichick's brains and defense, although Brady got credit for staying cool under pressure during the final drive. It was only later that there was a general consensus that Brady was in fact a special player, a playmaker; prior to that, he was a "system" QB (which makes no sense; all successful QBs play in a system). So it might APPEAR that a team wins w/out playmakers, because the playmakers are just establishing themselves as such. Thanks for the chats; nice to see progress w/ the Pack -- even winning against a one-win team lets young players taste success and (I hope) make them hungry for more.
A: Cliff Christl - You can make that argument. And I'll admit, I thought it at the time. I hadn't seen much of Brady and I was wrong. How smart was Belichick in 2000? Same brains, same defense, right? The Patriots finished 5-11 with Bledsoe. The next year, with Bledsoe, they lose their first two to Cincinnati, a team that would finish last in its division; and to the Jets and score only 3 points. Brady starts the next week for the first time and the Patriots score 44. He sets a franchise record for completion percentage. Go back and look at the other offensive starters for the Patriots in '01. I think they might have had better talent on offense in '00. I also think because Brady was a sixth-round draft pick that scouts weren't willing to accept that he was that good. They realized how well he was playing, but sometimes they can be stubborn about admitting they were wrong. Or maybe they thought he was a flash in the pan: A Hurricane Hazle. Old Milwaukee Braves' fans will know what I'm talking about there. But I know a scout who thought Brady was much better than where he was drafted coming out of college. He loved him, just couldn't sell his team on drafting him. It was the same with Johnny Unitas. Late pick. Cut by the Steelers. Signed out of a semi-pro league by the Colts. But as soon as he took over as the Colts' qb, the magic started. And I'm guessing people back then just took time to realize it, just as they did with Brady. I admit. I was blind, stupid or whatever when I didn't realize during Super Bowl XXXVII that this young kid coming out of nowhere was a great qb. But, at least, I figured it out. Don't get me wrong. He got better. But he was special from the day he took over as the starter. And I'd bet anything that Belichick would admit if he was forced to that the Patriots wouldn''t have won the Super Bowl that year if he hadn't stuck with Brady after the injury.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jake of Wisconsin Rapids - Is David Martin a Bonafide starter in this league?
A: Cliff Christl - He's playing well. He's getting lots of snaps. Just goes to show that players can develop five, six years into their careers. You just never know. That's why you see so many players fail one place, make it at the next. Like I wrote earlier. There are hundreds of good players in the league. David Martin is playing like one. Nothing more, nothing less.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Andy W. of Los Angeles - The Pack has won two in a row and Brett Favre is enjoying life. What's your prediction for his status in 2007? Rodgers is under contract through 2009; is sitting him another year a bad idea?
A: Cliff Christl - Somebody pointed out to Favre today at his press conference that he mentioned next year. Favre said that didn't mean he was coming back. But I wouldn't rule it out if the Packers keep improving. As for Rodgers, what difference does it make? If he can't show that he's better than a 37-year old Favre then he doesn't deserve to play.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Trevor of Kenora - Hi Cliff-did you see anything in Leinart's performance today that might make the Packers regret passing on him in the draft? Thanks!
A: Cliff Christl - No. I expected him to look better. Can he not throw a deep post? Or are they just keeping tight reins on him?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Chris of Madison - Why is it that Ahman Green and Al Harris are "getting old" at 31 or so, but Terrel Owens is an "All Star" and improving at 32. I don't understand that. What makes him so much better then either AG or AH?
A: Cliff Christl - Terrell Owens is improving. He's a rare and finely tuned athlete. And normally the better the athlete the longer they can play. That's why so many overachievers are done by the time they're 29, 30, 31. They lose it overnight. Remember Paul Coffman? Yet Lofton, a real thoroughbred, played well into his late 30s. Green is a finely tuned athlete, as well, but he's also a running back and they take a greater pounding. Their shelf life is usually shorter. Plus, Green's injury still makes him a greater risk. Two weeks from now, he could have hamstring problems again. Or maybe next season. You can compare Harris and Owens. But Owens is a great athlete. Harris is a good athlete. That's the difference. Thanks for all the questions. Good night.
|
Cardinals-Packers
Cliff Christl
Packer Insider columnist
Cliff answered your questions after the Packers' game against the Arizona Cardinals at Lambeau Field.
Q: Chad of Minneapolis - Cliff - What in the world was McCarthy thinking with the fake field goal. The o-line had actually been opening holes for once on that drive, and he doesn't show confidence in them to go for it on 4th and 1?
A: Cliff Christl - Chad, we'll start with you. He said after the game it was a dumb decision on his part. And as he said, if you're going to go with the fake, do it in on fourth-and-six, not fourth-and-one. But what would have been wrong with kicking a field goal? It would have been a 42-yard attempt. I still think, you get the points on your first opportunity. Get the lead.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Local Crackpot of LaLa Land - Cliffy, What has gotten into Faver and Green? thney are playing like they think it is 2002? Don't they know they are washed up?
A: Cliff Christl - Those are the two guys that have been their prime-time players in the past. If they can keep it going, the Packers can keep winning. They can't win if Favre and Green aren't making plays. But they've made them for two straight games. Then again, they also played two one-win teams that were really in ruts. The Dolphins had lost three straight; the Cardinals six straight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike Winkle of Chicago - Hi Cliff, My take on today's game is the Packers beat up on a rookie QB that is leading a really bad team, perhaps the worst in the NFL. No doubt I will take the win, but is it possible to judge whether this team is making progress looking at a game like this?
A: Cliff Christl - I think it's obvious they're making progress. I think there were people who thought that the Packers might be one of those one-win teams right now. That they're better than the dregs of the league is progress. I admit I was surprised at how bad the Cardinals looked. I knew they were missing Fitzgerald. In their three wide receiver sets, which they use a good share of the time, they're replacing Fitzgerald with 5-8, 171-pound Troy Walters. That's a huge dropoff. That's almost like replacing Randy Moss with Antonio Chatman. And I knew that the Cardinals haven't been able to really take advantage of those two receivers because of quarterback, tight end and o-line problems. But I thought maybe Leinert would be more advanced than most rookie qbs because he played at USC in a pro-style offense against top competition. But he doesn't throw the ball downfield. It's all checkdowns and some crossing stuff. I asked somebody during the post-game interviews if they had seen him throw deep much on film going into the game. They said some, but not much. If Leinert can't make plays deep down the middle -- which was one of the scout's concerns going into the draft -- or stretch a defense vertically down the sideline, he's going to have a tough time making it as an NFL qb. I'm guessing the Packers just squeezed their defense against him and that other teams have been doing the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave of Milwaukee - Hey Cliff, you've been off the mark and pretty poor with your coverage for years. How do you explain the Journal not firing you?
A: Cliff Christl - Then, why are you participating in this chat and reading what I write? Are you a sucker or a hypocrite?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Greg Bissy of Long Island - Cliff, How did Al Harris do today? Hehad some glaring mistakes again this week. However, Boldin appeared to be a non-factor today. Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - He shut down Boldin. Shadowed him all day and held him to 4 catches for 47 yards. He had a late hold that led to a meaningless TD. And I realize Bolden had a couple of drops early and a rookie qb who looks like he has a suspect arm. But Boldin might be a top 10 receiver. Other than the almost meaningless holding call, what else did Harris do wrong?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave Gray of Spokane, WA - Cliff, I can't recall Favre ever doing a Lambeau Leap--Holmgren forbade it to prevent injury, and Favre hasn't scored a TD in five years. After all these years, was this really his first one?
A: Cliff Christl - Don't know. Don't really pay attention. I'm usually writing notes after a score or trying to see a replay up in the press box.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Arthur of Germantown - How good is the Packers' offensive line? How bad is the Cardinals' defensive line? Putting up two 100 yard running backs in the NFL would seem to be pretty rare and an impressive accomplishment.
A: Cliff Christl - It sure was. The Packers hadn't had two backs go over 100 yards since the Snow Ball against Tampa Bay 21 years ago. So it doesn't happen often, at least not in Green Bay as of late. I think the line is much improved. I think Wells has played well all year, and I'm guessing the two rookie guards probably had their best game so far. The Cardinals came into the game ranked 18th against the rush. Not good, but not terrible. They played a lot of five-man line, which was designed to stop the run. And they still couldn't. I wonder what their emotion level was. They looked like a team that has thrown in the towel or is just waiting for Denny Grenn to get fired.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave of Boise - It's nice to see them win even if it's against a 1-6 team. McGinn talked about what this team needs in the future and he commented the DL is probably OK. While they had a few sacks again today they are not getting pressure. There is no "playmaker" on the line disrupting when it counts. Our pass defense gets blamed for breakdowns but could it be the DL is giving opponents QB's way too much time? I thought Arizona's OL was a mess, they continually gave Lineart all day in the pocket. Our ground game kept Arizona's offense off the field and we had a good day for once. I see DL as a top priority in the offseason if this team wants to get back in the playoffs soon. Outside of that it's fun to get the W!
A: Cliff Christl - I thought the pass rush was sporadic today. A few times, it was almost like a jail break. Kampman had another multi-sack game. KGB put some heat on at times against a good left tackle. But there were times when Leinart had all day to throw, although he couldn't find anybody to throw it to. I don't know if that was the coverage or him. Anyway, the defensive line has three good starters in Kampman, Pickett and KGB. All three probably would start for most teams in the league. KGB and Pickett were rated 23 and 24 at their respective positions by PFW coming into this season. Kampman was 29th and, no doubt, he'd move up in the rankings now. So that tells you, those three guys are better than about one-third of the starters at their positions and better than just about everybody's No. 2. Plus, the Packers are pretty deep there. Lately, Johnny Jolly is starting to do some good things. I think Montgomery has had two good games in a row. What the Packers lack is a stud, a Pro Bowl caliber lineman. A Freeney, a Julius Peppers, a Jason Taylor and there are a few others. But those guys are rare. Most teams don't have one and, often, they're top 10 or top five draft picks. So I wouldn't call that a position of need unless the Packers could get a great player there, even a tackle, a Tommie Harris, for example. By the way, last week, somebody said they saw Kampman lining up at tackle on the same side as KGB. I didn't spot it and asked the person if he was sure. Well, my guess is that he was right because they did it today. There was at least one play where Kampman lined up as the right defensive tackle, next to KGB, and Pickett was on the outside and Jolly inside on the other side. Kampman also got one of his sacks rushing from the inside. Kampman said they were trying to get some different matchups, throw some different things at a rookie qb. But I'm also guessing the coaches now view Kampman as one of their best defensive players and are trying to get him in better position to make plays, to use him more as a weapon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Matt of Colfax - Thanks for the chats, Cliff. I enjoy your work. What do you make of the point-of-view that having Favre directing the offense at this point in time is helpful in the development of the young players (other than Rodgers). His leaderhsip can be a stabilizing facotr for the rookie receivers, lineman, and new additions in the backfield.
A: Cliff Christl - No question. Both McCarthy and Jagodzinski said after the game that Favre made several checks at the line that led to key plays, particularly in the red zone. The Packers are winning. There's nothing better for a young player than to win and gain confidence. That's half the battle sometimes. I doubt if the Packers would be winning without Favre. So I'd say it's extremely important.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mark of Minneapolis - Nice job!!!!how did the team fare visa vis injuries?Thanks
A: Cliff Christl - They had several guys limp off late. Driver with an ankle. Morency with a lower back. Miree with an elbow. Collins with cramps. David Martin apparently hurt his jaw. McCarthy said he didn't know if any of the injuries were serious, but also said Martin, Miree and Morency were still being checked out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Matt of Eau Claire - Thanks for he chats, Cliff. If the season ended today, what do think the Packers' top needs would be? Finding "Stud" players on both sides of the ball is obvious but what other gaps do you think are a priority? Thanks!
A: Cliff Christl - I think they're pretty solid across the board with decent depth. They have a lot of good players or at least young players with promise. They're going to have to address their cornerback situation. That's a dangerously thin position and one that's growing old fast. Running back is another position that will need to be addressed. They're getting up there in years at offensive tackle. They're going to have to find a left tackle maybe sooner than later. But I think what they really need are just a few special players: A great wide receiver or running back; great pass rusher; and a Pro Bowl corner. That is if Favre plays again. But finding great players can take years, decades.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Corey of Quakertown PA - (Second try) Cliff I love your objectivity and your historical perspective. Soooo we are now officially in rebuild and it does not really hurt that bad!?!? I am interested in your perspective of the TT approach versus other the past 15 years. I recall Dave Wannsteads first year with the Bears. That team was done!!!!! But the team over acheived and not only made the playoffs they won a first round game. I think that set the table for a bad run for him in Chicago. So next week at this time the Pack could be 4-4 and could easily have beaten the Saints and Rams. How do you think this teams over acheiving with effect our rebuilding process/timeline??
A: Cliff Christl - Good question. But I don't know that anybody knows the answer. You see young players improving week to week, you see a team that's looking sharper by the week. That all speaks well for the future. But for the past two weeks, Favre and Green made the biggest difference in addition to Woodson's interception last week. So Favre goes or Green goes, the Packers could be starting over and a lot worse next year. Then again, if the young players keep getting better and the Packers hit it in the draft next year with their top pick and Favre comes back, maybe they could battle for the playoffs. But the bottom line is that the higher the draft pick, the better your odds of striking it rich. And, again, the NFL system is designed to make it tough on teams that win. So, say, the Packers finish 9-7 this year, which I wouldn't bet on. But let's just say they do. Come draft time, they'll get punished for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tom Lynum of Stillwater, MN - I realize after two wins and a couple cups of coffee, I'm rather exciteable, but when I look at the remaining schedule, 8-8 isn't unreasonable. I figure wins over Buffalo, Jets, SF, and Detroit. Then you just have to shoplift one of the Viking games with losses to Seattle, NE and Chicago. Is that realistic or should I start putting some firewater in my coffee??
A: Cliff Christl - I wouldn't get too excited until they play a good team. Then again, even Seattle might be beatable if it doesn't have Hasselbeck or Alexander. I think next week will be tough. The Bills have a darn good running back, the No. 3 ranked defense in the league coming into this week. And I get the sense that Donte' Whitner, the Bills' rookie safety from Ohio State, the guy all the so-called experts thought was a reach at No. 8 might be playing better than any of the other four defensive players taken in the top 10 in last spring's draft. I realize the Packers are going to have another huge edge at qb: Favre over Losman. But my advice would be to temper your enthusiam at least through next week. Plus, the Packers have stayed relatively healthy. Their biggest loss so far is Robert Ferguson. Big deal. You see all these other teams that started out hot and have been sliding and you look at their injury list and you know why. Seattle and Cincinnati have been hit with injuries to key people. Ditto for San Diego and Jacksonville, although they won today. I don't know if they got back people back or what or just rose to the occasion. But I think that's a big reason why the Packers keep improving. They're pretty healthy. And if they stay healthy, they'll win some more games, maybe even five of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Powerball of East Texas - Cliff, It's been said or written that Ingle Martin didn't really show a whole lot in training camp. Is that in he didn't show a lot period. How did he stack up against Hasselback in Hasselbacks first camp? I was listening to Hasselback earlier this year on Inside The NFL and he was asked who might have drafted a really good QB in the later rounds and he said Martin without hesitation. If Martin is able to stick around for 3 or 4 years does he have any potential?
A: Cliff Christl - He wasn't Josh Hueppel. Is that the correct spelling? Hueppel might have been the worst qb I've ever seen when he was in the Packers minicamp or training camp a few years back. But, boy, Martin didn't show much. His accuracy left a lot to be desired. I can't imagine him ever being anything other than a backup. But players surprise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: MikeB of Apple Valley, MN - Any emotional tirades from Denny in the post-game interviews?
A: Cliff Christl - I didn't go to the Arizona locker room. I heard one writer say that he offered another 10 bucks if he'd ask Green if the Packers were the team he expected them to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mad Dog of Texas - Cliff- I get the idea that you need talent to win, but I am just not with you on this kick that you can only win if you have a "special difference maker on your team", as in 2 superstars and 51 chumps gets it's done. Was there any "special difference makers" in last years Super Bowl and if so who were they? And who are the top 5 difference makers in the NFL this year. You only have to name four because we already know Ulacher is the captain of your universe. who are the other four in the entire NFL right now. I am curious because if your theory is correct, then one of these 5 players will be playing in the Super Bowl this year. I think the NFL is far more about the team than any other sport, but you seem to disagree. If that's the case then you should be able to give up the diffference makers names and see if they translate into a Super Bowl win this year. If you are going to write atricles that coaches and assistants and 51 out of 53 players are a non factor, then you should at the very least give the names of the players who are far bigger than the team itself.
A: Cliff Christl - First of all, as is often true in your case, you either can't read, you like to exaggerate or you don't get the facts straight. For starters, I've never said that you can win with two playmakers and 51 chumps. I've pointed out that it's important to have good players at every other position. How many times have I written bad players lose games? That's what kills the Cardinals. They have two special playmakers in their wide receivers and one of the top running backs in the game. But they haven't had a quarterback who can get them the ball, an offensive line that can block and a tight end who can do anything. Larry McCarren, who studies a lot of film, said today that the Cardinals' tight ends are just killing their running game. The Cardinals have three or four starters on offense who are dreadful or close to it, and one of them might be their qb. So they can't win with Boldin, Fitzgerald and James, three of the most explosive players in the game. What you need to have to win is one to three great players and good players everywhere else. No weak links. That's what the Patriots had. Tom Brady, maybe the best qb in the game. Richard Seymour, maybe one of the four or five best defensive linemen. And each year that they won a Super Bowl, they had one or two others who came close to playing at that level. Harrison one or two years; Ted Washington one year; the kicker maybe. They also had no weaknesses. But you take Brady off those teams and they don't win one Super Bowl. Just look at their record before Brady took over. With Pittsburgh, I think they won with defense and had two special players, Polamalu and Porter. Then, on offense, they had Hines Ward, who was ranked the sixth best receiver in the game coming into this year by PFW. Plus, Roethlisberger and Parker got hot. You think the Steelers would have won the Super Bowl with Charlie Batch and the same team otherwise? That's why they never won one before under Cowher. He never had a qb. But I still think if Carson Palmer hadn't gotten hurt, the Steelers wouldn't have been in the Super Bowl because Palmer, along with his receivers, were better. So who might win this year? No team is going to win without a special player or two. The Colts have Manning. The Bears have Urlacher. The Patriots have Brady. Carolina has Smith and Peppers. Denver has Champ Bailey, plus those linebackers and now Walker. San Diego has a batch: Tomlinson, Gates, Merriman and Jamal Williams. The Giants have Strahan and Barber and Shockley and Eli seems to be emerging. The Falcons have Vick. The Eagles have McNabb and Westbrook. I don't see Seattle winning because Alexander and Hasselbeck are hurting. That's a team that I think will prove my point. They lose two-thirds of what got them there last year -- the trio of Alexander, Jones and Hutchinson -- and they struggle early. Now, they lose their game manager, Hasselbeck, and they're really in trouble. The Chargers' get hit with the Merriman thing. McCarthy and Jagodzinski talk about the importance of playmakers all the time. I've never met anybody in the NFL who doesn't subscribe to the theory that you have to have special players to win. Did you ever play sports in your life? The teams with the best players have the advantage all the time. Now, do they always win. No. Because sometimes they're surrounded by too many bad players. That's why injuries matter so much. Lose your playmaker and you're done. Lose a good player and replace him with a bad player and it can haunt you, too. But those good players can sometimes be replaced if it's just one or two. Great players can't be replaced. The Colts lose Manning; they're done. I can't imagine that you agree with that. Here's what people in the game have always told me. There are anywhere from a half-a-dozen to maybe 25 or 40 special players. The number is something people disagree on. And out of those players, the ones who stay healthy and stay at the top of their game will be the ones who make plays down the the stretch and lead their teams to the Super Bowl. Then there are hundreds of good players. Maybe 500, 700. Some fit a team or a system better than others, but they're all pretty interchangeable. Then, there are maybe 50, 100 or so players who shouldn't be starting. And if you have too many of those, it's going to kill you. Why do you think the Cowboys won? Aikman, Smith, Irvin and, for awhile, Sanders. They had four of the greatest players of the era. That's why they were a dynasty. Why did the Packers win in '96? They had Favre, White, Butler. Remember, they had a good player in Robert Brooks, a guy who caught 100 passes the year before. But he got hurt and they replaced him. Players like that are replaceable. Favre and White weren't. Lose either one of them and the Packers were done. Why didn't the Packers win in the other years that they had Favre, White and Butler? Early, it was because the Cowboys had better. In the couple years after, White wasn't the same player. Plus, the Packers had no weaknesses in '96. They had some before; they had some after. In '97, they had Wilkins starting at defensive end. He killed them in the Super Bowl. I know I've gone on and on here. But my opinion is based strictly on what I've been told by some of the top coaches and personnel people in the game. I've never met one who didn't buy into the playmaker theory. So it shocks me when somebody questions it. But maybe you're right. And Bill Walsh, Ron Wolf, Paul Brown, Jim Finks, Tom Landry, Don Shula and I could go on and on and on -- with the list of people I interviewed for a book on the draft 20 some years ago -- were all wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Don of Torrington, CT - Hi Cliff - I tried to pay attention to Hawk today, and I saw what you were saying the last couple of weeks in your writing...that he is alittle light. On the goal line stand at the end of the first half, he was in the hole, but basically got run over. He seems to be in the right place at the right time, but just not stout enough to really stuff anyone. How do you think he is coming along?
A: Cliff Christl - I think he's a good player. Active. Moves better than most of the LBs in the game. Excellent in space. But I don't see a real explosive player: Somebody blowing up people in the hole, running over blockers on the blitz.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Randy G of Milwaukee - Cliff, I've lived in Wisconsin for 52 years, and drive semi all over. Used to be a packer fan until '94 when they pulled out of playing in Milwaukee. Some of my Cheesehead friends called me after the Pack game and said the Pack has won two games now, and now have this disillusioned idea that the Packers will go either to the playoffs or the Super Bowl. My question to you is, I know that the holiday season is fastly approaching, but do you think these cheeseheads got into the cooking Sherry a little bit too early, and that is what is making them goofy in thinking the Pack will go to the Super Bowl?? Thanks, and Gooooooooo...Bears!!!!!
A: Cliff Christl - The Packers aren't going to the Super Bowl. I think there's little chance that they'll make the playoffs. But if Ahman Green keeps running like he is, they could surprise some teams.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ben of Toronto - Hi Cliff, in response to your question to Greg Bissy of Long Island, as to what else did Harris do wrong...I have to say that he played ok, but missed early in the game on a potential interception and score. I count two of those for him this year, the other being against the Rams - two very, very big misses. No way he should get any sort of revamped, re-negotiated contract. Thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - You're right. I forgot about that one. Dropped interception on the third play of the game. Against a better team that could have been a killer. But he still played a good game. Is he worth more money? I'd be reluctant because he'll be 32 at the end of the season. But what happens if they lose him? It's not Charles Woodson that they're putting on the other team's best receiver every play? It's Harris. Just remember, when I talk about bad players, a bad corner can kill you maybe more than any other positon except qb.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Sam of Chicago - HI Cliff, thanks for your time. I know that you say you are not a fan, but do you enjoy watching certain players at least? Or is it all strictly professional? I know part of this is my sentimentality for the Pack, but I love watching Driver play regardless of where he is on the talent meter of scouts around the league. He is all heart and is truly inspirational. And watching Brett literally brought tears to my eyes today. He is laying it all on the line for a team that he had to have known was going to stink this year, yet made no demands to be traded or released. It is fun watching players like that give back what some of us as true fans give to our favorite teams.
A: Cliff Christl - I appreciate greatness. Take away the great players and the game wouldn't be the same. But I don't get maudlin over it. I used to admire the skills of Randy Moss when he was in Minnesota, just as much as Brett Favre's. I also respect the efforts of players like Driver. But most players in the NFL give great effort. Really, it comes down to having a job to do and I don't think you can be emotional and do my job well. At least, I"ve never seen an emotional sportswriter that didn't let it affect his work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: David of Savage, MN - Cliff, Thanks for the chat. If and when ARod takes over for Brett,whether it is next year or the year after, do you think he will be better prepared, at that time, having merely held a clipboard on game day for the next one or two years and developed only in practice versus being thrown into the fire so to speak, sooner and have to suffer through the inevitable struggles he would surely have on the field? Thanks, I'll hang up and listen.
A: Cliff Christl - I don't think that matters as much as whether the ability and all the intangibles are there. If he's got it, he'll be a good qb. If not, he won't be. Is this hurting or helping his development? I don't know if anybody knows the answer. The only thing I'd say that would have hurt him is if the coaches had played him and he hadn't earned it. The other players have to have confidence in a qb and respect him. By the way, why no questions the last two weeks about Favre and why the Packers haven't stuck a fork in him. Wasn't that the line of one chatter not long? Amazing how people spout opinions, but then run and hide when they're wrong. Isn't it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ann of Amherst, NH - Cliff, I don't want to belabor the "playmakers" theory, I basically agree with you. The only observation that I would make is that, because it takes virtually ALL NFL players time to mature in their pro game, SOMETIMES it seems as if teams win w/out a playmaker -- because it's only further down the road that a player is finally established as a playmaker. Case in point: Tom Brady. One Super Bowl -- they pulled it off w/ Belichick's brains and defense, although Brady got credit for staying cool under pressure during the final drive. It was only later that there was a general consensus that Brady was in fact a special player, a playmaker; prior to that, he was a "system" QB (which makes no sense; all successful QBs play in a system). So it might APPEAR that a team wins w/out playmakers, because the playmakers are just establishing themselves as such. Thanks for the chats; nice to see progress w/ the Pack -- even winning against a one-win team lets young players taste success and (I hope) make them hungry for more.
A: Cliff Christl - You can make that argument. And I'll admit, I thought it at the time. I hadn't seen much of Brady and I was wrong. How smart was Belichick in 2000? Same brains, same defense, right? The Patriots finished 5-11 with Bledsoe. The next year, with Bledsoe, they lose their first two to Cincinnati, a team that would finish last in its division; and to the Jets and score only 3 points. Brady starts the next week for the first time and the Patriots score 44. He sets a franchise record for completion percentage. Go back and look at the other offensive starters for the Patriots in '01. I think they might have had better talent on offense in '00. I also think because Brady was a sixth-round draft pick that scouts weren't willing to accept that he was that good. They realized how well he was playing, but sometimes they can be stubborn about admitting they were wrong. Or maybe they thought he was a flash in the pan: A Hurricane Hazle. Old Milwaukee Braves' fans will know what I'm talking about there. But I know a scout who thought Brady was much better than where he was drafted coming out of college. He loved him, just couldn't sell his team on drafting him. It was the same with Johnny Unitas. Late pick. Cut by the Steelers. Signed out of a semi-pro league by the Colts. But as soon as he took over as the Colts' qb, the magic started. And I'm guessing people back then just took time to realize it, just as they did with Brady. I admit. I was blind, stupid or whatever when I didn't realize during Super Bowl XXXVII that this young kid coming out of nowhere was a great qb. But, at least, I figured it out. Don't get me wrong. He got better. But he was special from the day he took over as the starter. And I'd bet anything that Belichick would admit if he was forced to that the Patriots wouldn''t have won the Super Bowl that year if he hadn't stuck with Brady after the injury.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jake of Wisconsin Rapids - Is David Martin a Bonafide starter in this league?
A: Cliff Christl - He's playing well. He's getting lots of snaps. Just goes to show that players can develop five, six years into their careers. You just never know. That's why you see so many players fail one place, make it at the next. Like I wrote earlier. There are hundreds of good players in the league. David Martin is playing like one. Nothing more, nothing less.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Andy W. of Los Angeles - The Pack has won two in a row and Brett Favre is enjoying life. What's your prediction for his status in 2007? Rodgers is under contract through 2009; is sitting him another year a bad idea?
A: Cliff Christl - Somebody pointed out to Favre today at his press conference that he mentioned next year. Favre said that didn't mean he was coming back. But I wouldn't rule it out if the Packers keep improving. As for Rodgers, what difference does it make? If he can't show that he's better than a 37-year old Favre then he doesn't deserve to play.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Trevor of Kenora - Hi Cliff-did you see anything in Leinart's performance today that might make the Packers regret passing on him in the draft? Thanks!
A: Cliff Christl - No. I expected him to look better. Can he not throw a deep post? Or are they just keeping tight reins on him?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Chris of Madison - Why is it that Ahman Green and Al Harris are "getting old" at 31 or so, but Terrel Owens is an "All Star" and improving at 32. I don't understand that. What makes him so much better then either AG or AH?
A: Cliff Christl - Terrell Owens is improving. He's a rare and finely tuned athlete. And normally the better the athlete the longer they can play. That's why so many overachievers are done by the time they're 29, 30, 31. They lose it overnight. Remember Paul Coffman? Yet Lofton, a real thoroughbred, played well into his late 30s. Green is a finely tuned athlete, as well, but he's also a running back and they take a greater pounding. Their shelf life is usually shorter. Plus, Green's injury still makes him a greater risk. Two weeks from now, he could have hamstring problems again. Or maybe next season. You can compare Harris and Owens. But Owens is a great athlete. Harris is a good athlete. That's the difference. Thanks for all the questions. Good night.
|