motife
01-23-2007, 07:19 PM
Q: JP of Orlando - Cliff, If (and it looks like he will) Favre retires, would it not make sense to make a run at Atlanta's Matt Schaub who has put up some decent stats when given a chance to play. Also, he would certainly push Rodgers to prove himself quicker. I know he's restricted but this guy can play!
A: Cliff Christl - JP, you're up first. With Michael Vick's situation, I'm guessing that Atlanta will make every effort to keep Schaub. He knows their system. He has shown some promise. So I don't see where it makes much sense to bid against the Falcons for an unproven qb, a guy that might not be any better than Aaron Rodgers. Are you going to give up a high draft pick for him? I know fans are infatuated by Schaub, but I'm not sold on the guy. I'll admit I haven't watched him play a game. But I know this much: Fans always love backup qbs and the history of the league tells us that most of them don't pan out when they get their chance. I go back to Gary Cuozzo. He was Johnny Unitas' understudy for four years in Baltimore in the mid-1960s. He was supposedly the next Unitas. As I recall, the Saints traded the No. 1 pick in the draft to Baltimore for Cuozzo. Cuozzo alternated as the starter in New Orleans and had a so-so year. Next, the Minnesota Vikings traded for him and gave up two No. 1s. I think Cuozzo backed up Joe Kapp for a couple years and then took over as the starter for two years and just didn't cut it, although the Vikings went to the playoffs both years because of a great front four. The Vikings dumped him and Cuozzo played one more year with the St. Louis Cardinals. According to Total Football, the NFL's official encyclopedia, Cuozzo played 10 years and finished with a career completion percentage of 49.4 and a passer rating of 62.1 He threw 55 interceptions and 43 TDs. I'm not so sure the fans and others who have fallen in love with Schaub aren't going to be just as wrong as they were about Cuozzo. Look at Schaub's stats in regular-season games. I'm not sure of the circumstances in which he played, but the numbers certainly aren't impressive. He's 0-2 as a starter. He has a completion percentage of 52.2. His average per attempt is just 6.42. His TD-interception ratio is 6-6. And he has been sacked 12 times, which seems like a lot for someone who has thrown just 161 passes. So beware. Fans have been victimized by that "Fall-In-Love-With-The-Backup-QB" syndrome for years. Maybe Schaub will have a nice career, similar to Matt Hasselbeck. But I think it's a pipedream to believe that he'd be the answer for the Packers if Favre retires.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff of Turtle Lake - What do you think the Pack does in the draft? Do they just go with best available athlete, or do they go with a specific needed position in mind, like maybe a RB, Safety, TE, CB, LB, or DE?
A: Cliff Christl - Pick the best player. At 16, you're not likely to get a great player and that's the Packers greatest need. Look at the best teams this year: Indianapolis, New England, San Diego, Baltimore, Chicago. Four of those five had four of the best players in the game, maybe four of the top five: Manning, Brady, Tomlinson, Urlacher. Until the Packers find at least one player of that caliber, they aren't going to any Super Bowls. If they draft for need, they just increase their chances of passing on a potentially good to very good player with an outside shot that the player could even be great.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tony Peardon of Palmyra - What do you think the Packers should do with their linebacking group. Do you think Poppinga is good enough not to draft or go after a free agent outside linebacker like Lance Briggs? Do you slide Barnett outside and put Hodge in the middle? Or do you just trade Barnett away? Let me know what scenario you think is most likely to happen.
A: Cliff Christl - It appears that Poppinga is going to be more than adequate as a starter. He showed signs of being a good run player. And one or two of the starting linebackers on a team are going to be situational, one- or two-down players. I think Poppinga fits the bill. Briggs is a very, very good player, but I don't think he'd have a great impact on the Packers. I think the cost would be greater than the potential reward. As for Barnett, why would you get rid of him? Did you see the Seattle game? Abdul Hodge played maybe the worst game I've ever seen a middle linebacker play. I realize it was one game, but you're not going to create a starting job for someone who completely flunked his first big opportunity. Plus, Hodge didn't even contribute much on special teams. Again, I think fans were guilty -- based on a Family Night scrimmage -- of "Falling in Love with the Backup MLB" syndrome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff Helminiak of Kenai - Your most recent column demonstrated in great detail the influence the rest of the team can have on the quarterback. There is no question Tom Brady is a great quarterback. There also is no question the Patriots have been able to put a great team around him for their Super Bowl runs. Some of the Patriots great playoff victories, like over the Rams in the Super Bowl, have been as much a triumph of the defense as of the offense. Again, I'm not belittling Brady. He's in the elite class of quarterbacks. But yesterday we saw that, just like any other elite quarterback, he was not able to overcome a complete collapse by his defense and a subpar running game. When I hear superlative assertions about Brady, like your statement that he may be the best pocket passer ever, I wonder how much those statements have been influenced by the team around him. Would Marino, Favre, Elway, Manning have won as much with the Patriots of recent vintage and their defense that has often been as clutch as the offense? I see no reason why not. Plus, Brady has not even completed his career yet. What am I missing?
A: Cliff Christl - Brady almost won that game. He basically has two rejects starting at wide receiver: Caldwell and Gaffney. Caldwell was a disappointment in San Diego, which isn't exactly loaded with wide receivers. Gaffney was cut by the Eagles after Houston let him leave in free agency. But they were the two leading receivers in the playoffs going into last weekend, at least. Just shows you what a great qb can do. How close did the Patriots come to going to another Super Bowl? And I think their defense was as good this year as the other years they won it. They finished sixth in the league. I don't know that they finished any higher in the three years they won Super Bowls. Their best defensive player, Richard Seymour, has been a constant, although he got hurt early against the Colts. I don't know how much that affected his play. Personally, I think Brady is a better passer than Montana. I think he throws the deep ball better. Give Brady Jerry Rice and I think New England might have about five straight Super Bowl victories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Wil of Las Vegas from Kenosha - Hi Cliff! Great article about Packer player rankings from PFW. Forgive me if I missed it in the rankings, but was Santana Dotson listed? I always thought he was a little under-appreciated, only because when he was with Tampa, and then of course GB, he was a great "pressure" DT for about 5-6 years consistently. I am not saying he was Top 10, but during his prime, I would vote for him being in the Top 20 for his ability to put pressure and sack the QB. I know you usually bracket your comments on players by saying you (and us fans) are not career football people, but was there a player or two from the GB Favre era you felt should have been ranked, or ranked higher? Thanks for your continued good work!
A: Cliff Christl - Santana Dotson was ranked 13th in '98, 14th in '97. He was a good role player who had some pass rush skills. Probably benefited from playing next to Gilbert, who ate up two blockers for a couple years there, and on the same line as Reggie White. But was Dotson indispensable? No. The Packers probably could have plugged in Darius Holland or Bob Kuberski and won it '96. They lost Robert Brooks and Ruettgers that year and it didn't matter. They plugged in Bruce Wilkerson on the offensive line and won the Super Bowl because Favre and White and Butler were at the top of their games. I thought the three guys who made the difference that year who weren't around the next year were Desmond Howard, Keith Jackson and Gilbert Brown. Brown was still around in '97. But he was starting to get heavy, as I recall, and wasn't the same player. But those three guys and Craig Hentrich probably were blue players in '96. Otherwise, I don't think there were any other players that were better than their grades. In fact, I think some players were ranked better than they were. Antonio Freeman comes to mind. I remember talking to a scout the year after Freeman's contract came up. The scout told me that he had been instructed to do a detailed film study of Freeman. The scout said he watched every game and reported to his boss that Freeman was nothing more than an average receiver made to look good by Brett Favre.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ty Van Harpen of Milwaukee - Hey Cliff, Here comes the draft..!!!! I am so excited only because Ted T looks like he might have a knack for drafting...and I was surprised how many players we drafted that saw the field and didn't necessarily play like typical rookies. So what do you think at #16..? I would think with the offensive talent available at that pick and our current needs that we pull the trigger on a wide receiver or tailback.. Your thoughts on # 16..? I know it's early....and I know the feeling of us having more depth might be a semi false considering we had a halo over the team protecting us from injury. Heck though...didn't we beat up one of the teams going to the Super Bowl in the regular season finally...? NOTE TO BRETT: PLEASE COME BACK...! Ty-
A: Cliff Christl - First of all, keep in mind, the Bears had nothing to play for. I guess the Packers didn't either, but they hadn't clinched anything. At this point, it appears the Packers had a good draft last year and they well should have. They started out with the No. 6 pick, their highest in 14 years. That's how the draft is designed: To help the teams that draft first. But let's see if A.J. Hawk becomes a great player or just a very good one. I think Colledge and Spitz are going to be good players, at least in a zone scheme. Ditto for Jennings. But they all need to improve. Let's wait and see if they do. As for Thompson's 2005 draft, Rodgers is an unknown. Collins had a disappointing season until the last game. Poppinga was a starter and played relatively well, but he wasn't anything special. So the jury is out on Thompson's drafts. Just looking real quick at my research, about 33% of No. 16 picks become Pro Bowl players. So the Packers have about a 1 in 3 shot of getting a real good player.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Terry Huebner of Hinsdale, IL - While I acknowledge that the Packers need playmakers, regardless of position, I would place their greatest need at wide receiver and cornerback, possibly the 2 areas of the draft where there are more misses with high draft picks than any other. Do you agree? Also, are you surprised at the guys being chosen for the head coach openings in the NFL? Some of the resumes are very thin indeed. Cameron was a profound failure at Indiana and it's a lot easier to be a coordinator when you have Tomlinson and Gates on your offense. The same could be said about Tomlin and Wisenhunt. I never viewed Pittsburgh's offense as that impressive and Tomlin's job in Minnesota in his only year as a coordinator wasn't too impressive. Why is it that established coaches like Sherman and even Martz don't get another shot and some of these guys get picked. Even someone like Tim Lewis or Russ Grimm would seem to be more deserving, but they get ignored. What do you make of it?
A: Cliff Christl - I think cornerback is a glaring need, even more so than wide receiver. But they could use a tight end, a left tackle, a quarterback, a running back, a run-down DT, a pass rusher, a safety. They have needs everywhere. But I think cornerback is their thinnest position. They have no depth at all there and that position probably requires good depth more than any other. As for the head coaching hires, some of the best coaches in the history of the game were young and unknown when they were hired. Don Shula. John Madden. Joe Gibbs didn't have much experience as a coordinator. Neither did Bill Cowher. Look at Andy Reid's credentials when he was hired in Philadelphia. The bottom line is that you never know. In my opinion, it would be presumptuous and stupid on my part -- or anyone's part for that matter -- to second-guess the hiring of a head coach.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Rob of Tampa - Hi Cliff, I don't know if you have answered this question elsewhere: What was your reasoning for selecting Manning as NFL MVP on your ballot over Tomlinson or Brees?
A: Cliff Christl - I narrowed my choices to Manning, Tomlinson and Brady. I didn't consider Brees. I don't think he's in the same class as Manning and Brady. I might be in the minority, but I think Reggie Bush made the biggest difference on that team. Don't get me wrong. Brees made a big difference, but more so because the guy he replaced, Aaron Brooks, was terrible. I think the Saints had been a sleeping giant under Jim Haslett; they just didn't have a competent qb. Anyway, as I wrote in a weblog, I would have voted for Tomlinson if I had been guaranteed that the Chargers would win the Super Bowl. But I didn't know that, so I had to base my vote on the regular-season. My feeling was that if you took Manning from the Colts, they'd have finished somewhere between a 2-14 and a 0-16 team with Jim Sorgi at quarterback. The Chargers had other weapons and two outstanding defensive players. Plus, I think a quarterback can make a much bigger difference than a running back. And I think you've seen that in the playoffs. Tom Brady, not even playing his best, had a bigger impact than Tomlinson in the Patriots-Chargers playoff game. And Manning has carried the Colts to the Super Bowl. I don't know if there has ever been a team more reliant on one player and gotten this far in the playoffs ever. It's a game of stars and they make the difference. But Manning is unbelievable. I don't know if any other qb in the history of the game could have pulled off that comeback Sunday. I guess nobody has. Wasn't it the biggest comeback ever? And against Baltimore, Manning controlled that entire game against a great defense. His stats weren't great. But he controlled the clock. He controlled the tempo. And he produced enough points to win. I'm guessing most teams would have been shut out that day or, at least, completely shut down by the Ravens' defense. But Manning kept it off balance. I don't want to short-sell Tomlinson. He is a great player. But Manning is literally a one-man team. And the award is for "the most valuable player," not "most outstanding player." If I had been voting for most outstanding, I might have voted for Tomlinson.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Digger of Andover - Hi Cliff: Here's what's bothering me: Why are these Bears so much less hateable than the '85 variety? Lately, my inability to focus my internal rage on these FIBS has become quite concerning. Maybe it's because these Bears have no clear targets for disdain that can rival the arrogance of McMahon, Ditka, Hampton and Butler (still my most hated player in NFL history-what a weasel). Maybe it's that after 14 years of domination I've dismissed the Bears in lieu of the Vikings. Maybe it's because the Packers spanked them on National TV just one month ago. Maybe it's because these Packers have more hope than the '85 Gregg era, rock-bottom, Randy Wright Packers. Maybe, I actually respect Lovie Smith. Maybe I don't want Peyton Manning (the man who will probably eventually break all of Favres records) to win the Super Bowl. Which is it Cliff? Does a self-admitted Bear fan such as you have the answer? Why can't I hate?
A: Cliff Christl - I was a Bear fan from ages 9 to 12 because they took me on the bus down at the old Northland Hotel in Green Bay and let me get every player's autograph before a game. Plus, they were winners then. As a kid, I only liked winners. But to answer your question, maybe it's because these Bears aren't as good as the '85 Bears.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike of Milwaukee - Is Mike Vick the most overrated player in the NFL? Is a quarterback's ability to run the most overrated skill in the NFL? Is ESPN pure evil because it glamorizes style at the expense of substance? Is there anything worse than the Super Bowl half time show? GO COLTS!!!
A: Cliff Christl - I didn't see enough Falcons' games to pass judgment, but I think Vick is one of the great talents in the game. I'm not sure if the Falcons didn't use him right or if he wanted to prove himself so much as a passer that he changed his game away from what he does best. Plus, his receivers haven't been anything special other than the tight end. And that coaching staff down there seemed really immature to me. At least, Mora and Donatell. That's how Donatell struck me in Green Bay.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mr. Know-It-All of Lunatic Fringe, WI - Hello Cliff, Regardless of whether or nor Favre retires this year, do you think it would be appropriate to bring in a veteran passer to compete with Rogers? There probably will not be another Drew Breese available, but there will probably be guys like Jake Plummer, Byron Leftwich, Kurt Warner, Patrick Ramsey, Mark Brunell, etc. Let's face it, we have no idea if Rogers is the guy. Even if Favre does come back, you need to protect yourself from an injury. If he's back and stays healthy, the worst case is you've got a guy with an extra year in the system ready to step in and compete. Do you think Thompson will pursue a veteran QB this offseason?
A: Cliff Christl - Good question. Unless they have more serious doubts about Rodgers than they've let on, I think they'll give him first shot. So they're not going to pay those guys No. 1-qb money. That means they probably won't have any interest in Green Bay. The Packers will need a veteran to compete, assuming they don't draft a qb No. 1 or 2. But I don't see any sense in paying big money for someone that might give you a shot at a 6-10 finish instead of 4-12 or 5-11 instead of 2-14.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: E of East Side of Milwaukee - Are you taking the Bears and 7 points or Indy and giving 7?
A: Cliff Christl - First of all, I would think any bettor would want to know the inside scoop on Manning's thumb. Manning vs. Grossman sounds like a 46-10 Super Bowl -- the reverse of what the Bears won by in SB XX -- but Manning vs. Urlacher sounds like a closer game. And that's really what the game will boil down to: The Colts' offense vs. the Bears' defense. If Manning's healthy, I go Colts and give the 7. By playing Mark Anderson more, I think the Bears will compensate some for the Tommie Harris loss. But I still don't think the Bears can win without Harris.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: JJ of Westland MI - Hey CC, enjoy your thoughts, thought I'd share another's perspective. Drew Sharp (Freep.com) ran an interesting column that every fan might consider. It is the - don't draft Calvin (the playmaker) Johnson #2 - for the Lions. Of course the Lions have a history with drafting receivers... but I digress. The point is "only two of this past weekends eight receivers (Wayne and Harrison) were drafted in the first round, and none before the 15th pick". He really slams the Lions organization for not developing talent, but that IS the NFL now, and THAT is (in my opinion) why a coach and GM should not be the same person, in that the developer and the evaluator can not remain objective. I guess my point is - to truly evaluate a direction of a team (rebuilding) it is the 2nd or 3rd year downstream when the Kampmans of the NFL step up or get cut. In that the rosters are constantly upgraded - talent wise, the teaching and the mini camps demand more... I still think CJ would be a great addition to any program, but as Barry Sanders commented here (after watching the last Packer/Lion game... "I'd draft a lineman in every round, someone's gotta be good" I guess thats the Ron Wolf DB thought...
A: Cliff Christl - Sounds like a good article and you make some good points. But I think the Packers need playmakers and the first round has produced some pretty good playmakers at wide receiver: Rice, Moss, Lofton, Holt and the list could go on and on. That said, teams also have found some playmakers in rounds two and three. Chad Johnson, Terrell Owens for starters. Could it be that it's a position with a lot of character risks and that's why the first-round flops, but also some second- and third-round finds? Just speculating there. Anyway, if the Patriots had a good No. 1 pick at wide receiver, they might be in the Super Bowl, not the Colts. The same for San Diego. I don't think you consider the Bears' offense in this discussion. They didn't make it to the Super Bowl because of their offense. You put the Bears' offense with the Colts' defense and I think you've got an 8-8 team at best. Maybe more like a 4-12 team.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bruce L of Stevenstown, WI - Cliff: Have you had any players take offense to some of your articles? Ever been confronted by a player? On the flip side, has there been a player(s) that you detested covering?
A: Cliff Christl - Back in the 1970s and '80s, players were more combative with the media, I think. I think they teach them now in their seminars that they're betting off just ignoring what's written about them. I remember the days when Gale Gillingham would scream at me on a regular basis, 'You poisioned pen blankety-blank.' But Gillingham held court in the locker room and gave everybody a hard time, including teammates. In fact, I was as amused by Gillingham as anyone. Most of my spats came with Bart Starr and, to a lesser extent, Dan Devine and Lindy Infante; in other words, coaches. Was there ever a player I detested covering? Not really. I had a professional relationship with them. I didn't like them; I didn't hate them. I should add a footnote here. I didn't detest Randy Wright, but I thought he was a weasel and I basically quit talking to him. He was a waste of my time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: mike of falls church va - Cliff, How would you rate today's NFL games as a product versus for instance the Lombardi era NFL? Leaving aside expansion, expanded playoffs, media coverage, minority involvement and all the changes to the consumer/fan's benefit, what is your opinion of the on the field game/product in terms of fan enjoyment gameday and the season as a whole? I am writing strictly from this consumer/fan's selfish point of view when I say I have become less and less enamored each passing year with the NFL. I recently watched ESPN replays of the 66 & 67 Packer Cowboy championship games and was struck by how much more sound the play was by both teams compared to anything I see on the field today. It just jumped right out at me as I watched, crisp tackling, blocking, route running and all the rest performed professionally by 4 down NFL football players who knew how to behave at work. There are a lot of factors involved but I believe free agency as practiced, by negating long term continuity, robs the game of excellence and drama, throughout the season and year to year. I offer no solutions and am perhaps being myopic or doddering but give me the white hot hatred on my Sundays that only 4 down football players who play each other frequently year in and year out can inspire for my entertainment dollar than today's situational playing free agent vagabonds and their clown act.
A: Cliff Christl - Mike, I liked the game better back then, too. I think situation substitution has ruined football.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Chris of Seattle - Cliff, I'm still having a hard time trying to figure out how the bears made it to the SB. I thought when Tommie Harris, there biggest playmaker on D, and their best player, went down they were done. Not to mention Brown at safety, probably the 3rd best player on that defense. They have a QB who is probably more of a liability as a playmaker than a benefit. Their O line is average, their WR's are not special. There RB's are not superstars. Besides their Defense and special teams being good. How did this team with no great offensive playmakers, and one great LB on Defense, make it to the big game? This gives me hope the Packers are not as far away as many think.
A: Cliff Christl - I wouldn't get overly excited. One, the Bears have only made it to the Super Bowl. If they lose what hope does that create? That the Packers could get to the Super Bowl and lose? Who would care? Any Super Bowl losers that you race about? As I wrote a few weeks ago, I think the four best teams in football this year all played in the AFC. Somebody had to win the NFC. And the Bears probably had the best player in the conference in Urlacher. What other playmakers were there? The most productive offensive player was Brees and I don't think he's a whole lot better, if any better, than Brett Favre or Matt Hasselbeck or Marc Bulger, for that matter. I think he's just a good quarterback. The best running back probably was Frank Gore. That's why the 49ers were the surprise team, but I don't think Gore is ready to win you a Super Bowl. So I think Urlacher was clearly the biggest playmaker in the NFC. Plus, the Bears have some other second-tier playmakers. Lance Briggs maybe doesn't make splashy plays, but he's a heck of a player. Mark Anderson had 12 sacks. But I think you're right. I don't think the Bears, without Harris and Brown, can win the Super Bowl unless Peyton Manning's thumb is a factor. On the other hand, if Harris and Brown were healthy, I'd consider picking the Bears. Then, they'd have a great defense in the class of the recent Ravens, Bucs that won Super Bowls. Without those guys, I just think it's very good. Thanks for all the questions. So long.
A: Cliff Christl - JP, you're up first. With Michael Vick's situation, I'm guessing that Atlanta will make every effort to keep Schaub. He knows their system. He has shown some promise. So I don't see where it makes much sense to bid against the Falcons for an unproven qb, a guy that might not be any better than Aaron Rodgers. Are you going to give up a high draft pick for him? I know fans are infatuated by Schaub, but I'm not sold on the guy. I'll admit I haven't watched him play a game. But I know this much: Fans always love backup qbs and the history of the league tells us that most of them don't pan out when they get their chance. I go back to Gary Cuozzo. He was Johnny Unitas' understudy for four years in Baltimore in the mid-1960s. He was supposedly the next Unitas. As I recall, the Saints traded the No. 1 pick in the draft to Baltimore for Cuozzo. Cuozzo alternated as the starter in New Orleans and had a so-so year. Next, the Minnesota Vikings traded for him and gave up two No. 1s. I think Cuozzo backed up Joe Kapp for a couple years and then took over as the starter for two years and just didn't cut it, although the Vikings went to the playoffs both years because of a great front four. The Vikings dumped him and Cuozzo played one more year with the St. Louis Cardinals. According to Total Football, the NFL's official encyclopedia, Cuozzo played 10 years and finished with a career completion percentage of 49.4 and a passer rating of 62.1 He threw 55 interceptions and 43 TDs. I'm not so sure the fans and others who have fallen in love with Schaub aren't going to be just as wrong as they were about Cuozzo. Look at Schaub's stats in regular-season games. I'm not sure of the circumstances in which he played, but the numbers certainly aren't impressive. He's 0-2 as a starter. He has a completion percentage of 52.2. His average per attempt is just 6.42. His TD-interception ratio is 6-6. And he has been sacked 12 times, which seems like a lot for someone who has thrown just 161 passes. So beware. Fans have been victimized by that "Fall-In-Love-With-The-Backup-QB" syndrome for years. Maybe Schaub will have a nice career, similar to Matt Hasselbeck. But I think it's a pipedream to believe that he'd be the answer for the Packers if Favre retires.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff of Turtle Lake - What do you think the Pack does in the draft? Do they just go with best available athlete, or do they go with a specific needed position in mind, like maybe a RB, Safety, TE, CB, LB, or DE?
A: Cliff Christl - Pick the best player. At 16, you're not likely to get a great player and that's the Packers greatest need. Look at the best teams this year: Indianapolis, New England, San Diego, Baltimore, Chicago. Four of those five had four of the best players in the game, maybe four of the top five: Manning, Brady, Tomlinson, Urlacher. Until the Packers find at least one player of that caliber, they aren't going to any Super Bowls. If they draft for need, they just increase their chances of passing on a potentially good to very good player with an outside shot that the player could even be great.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tony Peardon of Palmyra - What do you think the Packers should do with their linebacking group. Do you think Poppinga is good enough not to draft or go after a free agent outside linebacker like Lance Briggs? Do you slide Barnett outside and put Hodge in the middle? Or do you just trade Barnett away? Let me know what scenario you think is most likely to happen.
A: Cliff Christl - It appears that Poppinga is going to be more than adequate as a starter. He showed signs of being a good run player. And one or two of the starting linebackers on a team are going to be situational, one- or two-down players. I think Poppinga fits the bill. Briggs is a very, very good player, but I don't think he'd have a great impact on the Packers. I think the cost would be greater than the potential reward. As for Barnett, why would you get rid of him? Did you see the Seattle game? Abdul Hodge played maybe the worst game I've ever seen a middle linebacker play. I realize it was one game, but you're not going to create a starting job for someone who completely flunked his first big opportunity. Plus, Hodge didn't even contribute much on special teams. Again, I think fans were guilty -- based on a Family Night scrimmage -- of "Falling in Love with the Backup MLB" syndrome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff Helminiak of Kenai - Your most recent column demonstrated in great detail the influence the rest of the team can have on the quarterback. There is no question Tom Brady is a great quarterback. There also is no question the Patriots have been able to put a great team around him for their Super Bowl runs. Some of the Patriots great playoff victories, like over the Rams in the Super Bowl, have been as much a triumph of the defense as of the offense. Again, I'm not belittling Brady. He's in the elite class of quarterbacks. But yesterday we saw that, just like any other elite quarterback, he was not able to overcome a complete collapse by his defense and a subpar running game. When I hear superlative assertions about Brady, like your statement that he may be the best pocket passer ever, I wonder how much those statements have been influenced by the team around him. Would Marino, Favre, Elway, Manning have won as much with the Patriots of recent vintage and their defense that has often been as clutch as the offense? I see no reason why not. Plus, Brady has not even completed his career yet. What am I missing?
A: Cliff Christl - Brady almost won that game. He basically has two rejects starting at wide receiver: Caldwell and Gaffney. Caldwell was a disappointment in San Diego, which isn't exactly loaded with wide receivers. Gaffney was cut by the Eagles after Houston let him leave in free agency. But they were the two leading receivers in the playoffs going into last weekend, at least. Just shows you what a great qb can do. How close did the Patriots come to going to another Super Bowl? And I think their defense was as good this year as the other years they won it. They finished sixth in the league. I don't know that they finished any higher in the three years they won Super Bowls. Their best defensive player, Richard Seymour, has been a constant, although he got hurt early against the Colts. I don't know how much that affected his play. Personally, I think Brady is a better passer than Montana. I think he throws the deep ball better. Give Brady Jerry Rice and I think New England might have about five straight Super Bowl victories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Wil of Las Vegas from Kenosha - Hi Cliff! Great article about Packer player rankings from PFW. Forgive me if I missed it in the rankings, but was Santana Dotson listed? I always thought he was a little under-appreciated, only because when he was with Tampa, and then of course GB, he was a great "pressure" DT for about 5-6 years consistently. I am not saying he was Top 10, but during his prime, I would vote for him being in the Top 20 for his ability to put pressure and sack the QB. I know you usually bracket your comments on players by saying you (and us fans) are not career football people, but was there a player or two from the GB Favre era you felt should have been ranked, or ranked higher? Thanks for your continued good work!
A: Cliff Christl - Santana Dotson was ranked 13th in '98, 14th in '97. He was a good role player who had some pass rush skills. Probably benefited from playing next to Gilbert, who ate up two blockers for a couple years there, and on the same line as Reggie White. But was Dotson indispensable? No. The Packers probably could have plugged in Darius Holland or Bob Kuberski and won it '96. They lost Robert Brooks and Ruettgers that year and it didn't matter. They plugged in Bruce Wilkerson on the offensive line and won the Super Bowl because Favre and White and Butler were at the top of their games. I thought the three guys who made the difference that year who weren't around the next year were Desmond Howard, Keith Jackson and Gilbert Brown. Brown was still around in '97. But he was starting to get heavy, as I recall, and wasn't the same player. But those three guys and Craig Hentrich probably were blue players in '96. Otherwise, I don't think there were any other players that were better than their grades. In fact, I think some players were ranked better than they were. Antonio Freeman comes to mind. I remember talking to a scout the year after Freeman's contract came up. The scout told me that he had been instructed to do a detailed film study of Freeman. The scout said he watched every game and reported to his boss that Freeman was nothing more than an average receiver made to look good by Brett Favre.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ty Van Harpen of Milwaukee - Hey Cliff, Here comes the draft..!!!! I am so excited only because Ted T looks like he might have a knack for drafting...and I was surprised how many players we drafted that saw the field and didn't necessarily play like typical rookies. So what do you think at #16..? I would think with the offensive talent available at that pick and our current needs that we pull the trigger on a wide receiver or tailback.. Your thoughts on # 16..? I know it's early....and I know the feeling of us having more depth might be a semi false considering we had a halo over the team protecting us from injury. Heck though...didn't we beat up one of the teams going to the Super Bowl in the regular season finally...? NOTE TO BRETT: PLEASE COME BACK...! Ty-
A: Cliff Christl - First of all, keep in mind, the Bears had nothing to play for. I guess the Packers didn't either, but they hadn't clinched anything. At this point, it appears the Packers had a good draft last year and they well should have. They started out with the No. 6 pick, their highest in 14 years. That's how the draft is designed: To help the teams that draft first. But let's see if A.J. Hawk becomes a great player or just a very good one. I think Colledge and Spitz are going to be good players, at least in a zone scheme. Ditto for Jennings. But they all need to improve. Let's wait and see if they do. As for Thompson's 2005 draft, Rodgers is an unknown. Collins had a disappointing season until the last game. Poppinga was a starter and played relatively well, but he wasn't anything special. So the jury is out on Thompson's drafts. Just looking real quick at my research, about 33% of No. 16 picks become Pro Bowl players. So the Packers have about a 1 in 3 shot of getting a real good player.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Terry Huebner of Hinsdale, IL - While I acknowledge that the Packers need playmakers, regardless of position, I would place their greatest need at wide receiver and cornerback, possibly the 2 areas of the draft where there are more misses with high draft picks than any other. Do you agree? Also, are you surprised at the guys being chosen for the head coach openings in the NFL? Some of the resumes are very thin indeed. Cameron was a profound failure at Indiana and it's a lot easier to be a coordinator when you have Tomlinson and Gates on your offense. The same could be said about Tomlin and Wisenhunt. I never viewed Pittsburgh's offense as that impressive and Tomlin's job in Minnesota in his only year as a coordinator wasn't too impressive. Why is it that established coaches like Sherman and even Martz don't get another shot and some of these guys get picked. Even someone like Tim Lewis or Russ Grimm would seem to be more deserving, but they get ignored. What do you make of it?
A: Cliff Christl - I think cornerback is a glaring need, even more so than wide receiver. But they could use a tight end, a left tackle, a quarterback, a running back, a run-down DT, a pass rusher, a safety. They have needs everywhere. But I think cornerback is their thinnest position. They have no depth at all there and that position probably requires good depth more than any other. As for the head coaching hires, some of the best coaches in the history of the game were young and unknown when they were hired. Don Shula. John Madden. Joe Gibbs didn't have much experience as a coordinator. Neither did Bill Cowher. Look at Andy Reid's credentials when he was hired in Philadelphia. The bottom line is that you never know. In my opinion, it would be presumptuous and stupid on my part -- or anyone's part for that matter -- to second-guess the hiring of a head coach.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Rob of Tampa - Hi Cliff, I don't know if you have answered this question elsewhere: What was your reasoning for selecting Manning as NFL MVP on your ballot over Tomlinson or Brees?
A: Cliff Christl - I narrowed my choices to Manning, Tomlinson and Brady. I didn't consider Brees. I don't think he's in the same class as Manning and Brady. I might be in the minority, but I think Reggie Bush made the biggest difference on that team. Don't get me wrong. Brees made a big difference, but more so because the guy he replaced, Aaron Brooks, was terrible. I think the Saints had been a sleeping giant under Jim Haslett; they just didn't have a competent qb. Anyway, as I wrote in a weblog, I would have voted for Tomlinson if I had been guaranteed that the Chargers would win the Super Bowl. But I didn't know that, so I had to base my vote on the regular-season. My feeling was that if you took Manning from the Colts, they'd have finished somewhere between a 2-14 and a 0-16 team with Jim Sorgi at quarterback. The Chargers had other weapons and two outstanding defensive players. Plus, I think a quarterback can make a much bigger difference than a running back. And I think you've seen that in the playoffs. Tom Brady, not even playing his best, had a bigger impact than Tomlinson in the Patriots-Chargers playoff game. And Manning has carried the Colts to the Super Bowl. I don't know if there has ever been a team more reliant on one player and gotten this far in the playoffs ever. It's a game of stars and they make the difference. But Manning is unbelievable. I don't know if any other qb in the history of the game could have pulled off that comeback Sunday. I guess nobody has. Wasn't it the biggest comeback ever? And against Baltimore, Manning controlled that entire game against a great defense. His stats weren't great. But he controlled the clock. He controlled the tempo. And he produced enough points to win. I'm guessing most teams would have been shut out that day or, at least, completely shut down by the Ravens' defense. But Manning kept it off balance. I don't want to short-sell Tomlinson. He is a great player. But Manning is literally a one-man team. And the award is for "the most valuable player," not "most outstanding player." If I had been voting for most outstanding, I might have voted for Tomlinson.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Digger of Andover - Hi Cliff: Here's what's bothering me: Why are these Bears so much less hateable than the '85 variety? Lately, my inability to focus my internal rage on these FIBS has become quite concerning. Maybe it's because these Bears have no clear targets for disdain that can rival the arrogance of McMahon, Ditka, Hampton and Butler (still my most hated player in NFL history-what a weasel). Maybe it's that after 14 years of domination I've dismissed the Bears in lieu of the Vikings. Maybe it's because the Packers spanked them on National TV just one month ago. Maybe it's because these Packers have more hope than the '85 Gregg era, rock-bottom, Randy Wright Packers. Maybe, I actually respect Lovie Smith. Maybe I don't want Peyton Manning (the man who will probably eventually break all of Favres records) to win the Super Bowl. Which is it Cliff? Does a self-admitted Bear fan such as you have the answer? Why can't I hate?
A: Cliff Christl - I was a Bear fan from ages 9 to 12 because they took me on the bus down at the old Northland Hotel in Green Bay and let me get every player's autograph before a game. Plus, they were winners then. As a kid, I only liked winners. But to answer your question, maybe it's because these Bears aren't as good as the '85 Bears.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike of Milwaukee - Is Mike Vick the most overrated player in the NFL? Is a quarterback's ability to run the most overrated skill in the NFL? Is ESPN pure evil because it glamorizes style at the expense of substance? Is there anything worse than the Super Bowl half time show? GO COLTS!!!
A: Cliff Christl - I didn't see enough Falcons' games to pass judgment, but I think Vick is one of the great talents in the game. I'm not sure if the Falcons didn't use him right or if he wanted to prove himself so much as a passer that he changed his game away from what he does best. Plus, his receivers haven't been anything special other than the tight end. And that coaching staff down there seemed really immature to me. At least, Mora and Donatell. That's how Donatell struck me in Green Bay.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mr. Know-It-All of Lunatic Fringe, WI - Hello Cliff, Regardless of whether or nor Favre retires this year, do you think it would be appropriate to bring in a veteran passer to compete with Rogers? There probably will not be another Drew Breese available, but there will probably be guys like Jake Plummer, Byron Leftwich, Kurt Warner, Patrick Ramsey, Mark Brunell, etc. Let's face it, we have no idea if Rogers is the guy. Even if Favre does come back, you need to protect yourself from an injury. If he's back and stays healthy, the worst case is you've got a guy with an extra year in the system ready to step in and compete. Do you think Thompson will pursue a veteran QB this offseason?
A: Cliff Christl - Good question. Unless they have more serious doubts about Rodgers than they've let on, I think they'll give him first shot. So they're not going to pay those guys No. 1-qb money. That means they probably won't have any interest in Green Bay. The Packers will need a veteran to compete, assuming they don't draft a qb No. 1 or 2. But I don't see any sense in paying big money for someone that might give you a shot at a 6-10 finish instead of 4-12 or 5-11 instead of 2-14.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: E of East Side of Milwaukee - Are you taking the Bears and 7 points or Indy and giving 7?
A: Cliff Christl - First of all, I would think any bettor would want to know the inside scoop on Manning's thumb. Manning vs. Grossman sounds like a 46-10 Super Bowl -- the reverse of what the Bears won by in SB XX -- but Manning vs. Urlacher sounds like a closer game. And that's really what the game will boil down to: The Colts' offense vs. the Bears' defense. If Manning's healthy, I go Colts and give the 7. By playing Mark Anderson more, I think the Bears will compensate some for the Tommie Harris loss. But I still don't think the Bears can win without Harris.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: JJ of Westland MI - Hey CC, enjoy your thoughts, thought I'd share another's perspective. Drew Sharp (Freep.com) ran an interesting column that every fan might consider. It is the - don't draft Calvin (the playmaker) Johnson #2 - for the Lions. Of course the Lions have a history with drafting receivers... but I digress. The point is "only two of this past weekends eight receivers (Wayne and Harrison) were drafted in the first round, and none before the 15th pick". He really slams the Lions organization for not developing talent, but that IS the NFL now, and THAT is (in my opinion) why a coach and GM should not be the same person, in that the developer and the evaluator can not remain objective. I guess my point is - to truly evaluate a direction of a team (rebuilding) it is the 2nd or 3rd year downstream when the Kampmans of the NFL step up or get cut. In that the rosters are constantly upgraded - talent wise, the teaching and the mini camps demand more... I still think CJ would be a great addition to any program, but as Barry Sanders commented here (after watching the last Packer/Lion game... "I'd draft a lineman in every round, someone's gotta be good" I guess thats the Ron Wolf DB thought...
A: Cliff Christl - Sounds like a good article and you make some good points. But I think the Packers need playmakers and the first round has produced some pretty good playmakers at wide receiver: Rice, Moss, Lofton, Holt and the list could go on and on. That said, teams also have found some playmakers in rounds two and three. Chad Johnson, Terrell Owens for starters. Could it be that it's a position with a lot of character risks and that's why the first-round flops, but also some second- and third-round finds? Just speculating there. Anyway, if the Patriots had a good No. 1 pick at wide receiver, they might be in the Super Bowl, not the Colts. The same for San Diego. I don't think you consider the Bears' offense in this discussion. They didn't make it to the Super Bowl because of their offense. You put the Bears' offense with the Colts' defense and I think you've got an 8-8 team at best. Maybe more like a 4-12 team.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bruce L of Stevenstown, WI - Cliff: Have you had any players take offense to some of your articles? Ever been confronted by a player? On the flip side, has there been a player(s) that you detested covering?
A: Cliff Christl - Back in the 1970s and '80s, players were more combative with the media, I think. I think they teach them now in their seminars that they're betting off just ignoring what's written about them. I remember the days when Gale Gillingham would scream at me on a regular basis, 'You poisioned pen blankety-blank.' But Gillingham held court in the locker room and gave everybody a hard time, including teammates. In fact, I was as amused by Gillingham as anyone. Most of my spats came with Bart Starr and, to a lesser extent, Dan Devine and Lindy Infante; in other words, coaches. Was there ever a player I detested covering? Not really. I had a professional relationship with them. I didn't like them; I didn't hate them. I should add a footnote here. I didn't detest Randy Wright, but I thought he was a weasel and I basically quit talking to him. He was a waste of my time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: mike of falls church va - Cliff, How would you rate today's NFL games as a product versus for instance the Lombardi era NFL? Leaving aside expansion, expanded playoffs, media coverage, minority involvement and all the changes to the consumer/fan's benefit, what is your opinion of the on the field game/product in terms of fan enjoyment gameday and the season as a whole? I am writing strictly from this consumer/fan's selfish point of view when I say I have become less and less enamored each passing year with the NFL. I recently watched ESPN replays of the 66 & 67 Packer Cowboy championship games and was struck by how much more sound the play was by both teams compared to anything I see on the field today. It just jumped right out at me as I watched, crisp tackling, blocking, route running and all the rest performed professionally by 4 down NFL football players who knew how to behave at work. There are a lot of factors involved but I believe free agency as practiced, by negating long term continuity, robs the game of excellence and drama, throughout the season and year to year. I offer no solutions and am perhaps being myopic or doddering but give me the white hot hatred on my Sundays that only 4 down football players who play each other frequently year in and year out can inspire for my entertainment dollar than today's situational playing free agent vagabonds and their clown act.
A: Cliff Christl - Mike, I liked the game better back then, too. I think situation substitution has ruined football.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Chris of Seattle - Cliff, I'm still having a hard time trying to figure out how the bears made it to the SB. I thought when Tommie Harris, there biggest playmaker on D, and their best player, went down they were done. Not to mention Brown at safety, probably the 3rd best player on that defense. They have a QB who is probably more of a liability as a playmaker than a benefit. Their O line is average, their WR's are not special. There RB's are not superstars. Besides their Defense and special teams being good. How did this team with no great offensive playmakers, and one great LB on Defense, make it to the big game? This gives me hope the Packers are not as far away as many think.
A: Cliff Christl - I wouldn't get overly excited. One, the Bears have only made it to the Super Bowl. If they lose what hope does that create? That the Packers could get to the Super Bowl and lose? Who would care? Any Super Bowl losers that you race about? As I wrote a few weeks ago, I think the four best teams in football this year all played in the AFC. Somebody had to win the NFC. And the Bears probably had the best player in the conference in Urlacher. What other playmakers were there? The most productive offensive player was Brees and I don't think he's a whole lot better, if any better, than Brett Favre or Matt Hasselbeck or Marc Bulger, for that matter. I think he's just a good quarterback. The best running back probably was Frank Gore. That's why the 49ers were the surprise team, but I don't think Gore is ready to win you a Super Bowl. So I think Urlacher was clearly the biggest playmaker in the NFC. Plus, the Bears have some other second-tier playmakers. Lance Briggs maybe doesn't make splashy plays, but he's a heck of a player. Mark Anderson had 12 sacks. But I think you're right. I don't think the Bears, without Harris and Brown, can win the Super Bowl unless Peyton Manning's thumb is a factor. On the other hand, if Harris and Brown were healthy, I'd consider picking the Bears. Then, they'd have a great defense in the class of the recent Ravens, Bucs that won Super Bowls. Without those guys, I just think it's very good. Thanks for all the questions. So long.