motife
02-05-2007, 04:44 PM
FRIDAY, Feb. 2, chat transcript
Cliff Christl
Live from Miami, site of Super Bowl XLI, Cliff answered your Packers and Super Bowl questions in our regular Packer Insider chat. NOTE: The Favre news came only at the end of the chat.
Q: Josh of Madison, Wi - How do you feel about our Running Back situation? Ahman is getting old, Morency doesn't really seem to fit the 'feature' back, and it 'appears' the 15 teams above us in the draft don't really need an RB. Adrian Peterson runs too tall in my opinion, and probably will be taken earlier than Marshawn Lynch, who I believe looks real promising. We could use him like Maurice Jones-Drew. Thoughts or insight? Appreciate your time! Thanks Cliff!
A: Cliff Christl - Josh, you're up first. I think running back is certainly a need position and an outstanding rookie running back can have a big impact. If you look back at the recent history of the NFL, certainly the last 35 years or so, rookies have had more impact at the running back position than any other. I don't know if Favre's decision will affect Ted Thompson's thinking on the draft. Probably not. But if Favre retires, the Packers would have to win with defense and a running game. And a great running back probably would make Favre a better quarterback if he plays another year. But keep in mind, that at No. 16, a team's chances of drafting a great runner aren't that good. Most of the rookie running backs that have made a huge impact -- Barry Sanders, Billy Sims, Earl Campbell, Eric Dickerson, etc. -- have been top five choices. Running backs of that caliber rarely last until 16.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Terry Huebner of Hinsdale, IL - Why do you think guys like Jason Horton and Mike Hawkins didn't make it, while others do? Horton and Hawkins had some physical ability, but couldn't seem to get it done. Al Harris doesn't appear as quick or fast as either of those 2, yet he is very good. What's the difference? How do these 2 compare to Patrick Dendy, who is still around? Also, did Horton and Hawkins get picked up by anyone and how did Ahmad Carroll fare after the Packers cut him? Doesn't this just show how difficult player evaluation is? What teams are looking for in the end is football players, not just guys who do great in drills at the combine.
A: Cliff Christl - That's all true. That's largely why GMs, coaches, etc. all believe that playmakers make the difference in the NFL. Don't get me wrong. You need a good supporting cast as well. But there really isn't much difference between guys like Horton and Hawkins, and the players who make it. Teams pick players off the streets and they do just fine. Some even turn into solid starters. Hawkins and Horton might make it next year, the year after, two years from now. A lot of it is fit. The great players could play anywhere. That's why they're special. But of the other 95 to 99% of the the players, some fit different systems better. Some players perform better depending on the talent around them. Do you remember when the Packers drafted defensive ends Mike Butler and Ezra Johnson in the first round. Neither one had a great career; and Butler probably didn't live up to where he was drafted. But I thought they were two talented players. Yet I think both underachieved, although Johnson had a couple outstanding seasons. Why? I thought a big part of it was that the Packers lined up some abominable DTs next to them during that period; there were no veteran defenders to lead the way for Butler and Johnson; and the defensive scheme wasn't always a good fit for them. But back to the corners you mentioned. Harris strikes me as a pro's pro. He knows his limitations and plays accordingly. To me that's often what separates all the players who aren't superstars. They learn to play to their strengths and compensate for their weaknesses. In a sense, they play smart. If you'd recall, Hawkins and Horton came from itinerant backgrounds. Horton also had some serious health issues. That may have prevented him from being in the condition that he needed to be to make up for what ever he lacked in talent. But maybe the most important thing of all was that Dendy played at Rice, a top-notch school. Maybe that's the only difference: Maybe Dendy is smarter and has a better grip on reality and life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ann the NHPackerfan of Amherst, NH - Cliff, In a recent blog or chat, you asked rhetorically (in so many words), who remembers the Super Bowl losers? I got the impression that getting to the Super Bowl didn't count unless a team on it. But I beg to differ -- not my own argument, but in the general tenor of sportswriters. It is common to read about a teams (Green Bay's, for example) Super Bowl teams, or that so-and-so has been to x number of Super Bowls, winning y of them (Mike Holmgrem, 1 and 3). Marv Levy's teams were in the Super Bowl 4 straight years, which is now generally acknowledged as no small achievement. It may be held against a coach, team, or player that they never won a Super Bowl, but getting to a Super Bowl is indeed something of an achievement in itself. I would gladly make a deal w/ the devil -- let Favre have a SB appearance as his last game next year, even if they lose. Thanks for the offseason chats. Ann (who admits she still cannot watch or read about SB XXXII)
A: Cliff Christl - Vince Lombardi always said there were only two places in the NFL: First and last I'd agree. Getting to the Super Bowl doesn't mean that you're even the second-best team, third-best team, whatever. No matter what happens Sunday, I think the four best teams in the NFL this year were Indianapolis, New England, San Diego and Baltimore. The Bears probably match up better against the Colts than the other three and might win if Hester has a big day or some fluke developments. But they're no better than the fifth best team at this point, minus Harris and Brown.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Paul of Viroqua, WI - What's your opinion of the way Peyton Manning runs up and down the line shouting audibles? I don't think I've ever seen another QB quite so "visible" in shouting out audibles; does he just have a weak voice or do you think he might be "showboating" to let everyone know "he's the man!!"
A: Cliff Christl - They run a no-huddle at times and they always play in a dome or on the road. Also, when they huddle, maybe the plays have options that he has to call at the line. Maybe some times he's calling dummy audibles. It's my understanding that he has more leeway than most quarterbacks in terms of what play is eventually run. I don't think it's showboating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jack of Sacramento - Cliff, In your study of the draft which is the better predictor of success in the NFL, production in college or unrealized potential ?
A: Cliff Christl - I think the best players bring a combination of the two. It's probably safer to draft players with average talent that were productive in college, but the rewards can be much greater when teams take a chance on a player with a checkered past, but great talent. Again, that goes back to the Dallas Cowboys and Tom Landry when they were the model by which other teams were compared in the scouting area. They made more mistakes than anyone because they gambled probably on more picks than anyone. It was their theory that even if they were right only one out of 10 times, if that one player was special -- a big-time playmaker -- it was worth all the other mistakes because those are the players who make the difference, not the solid, productive guys who have no chance of being special. Look at the Chicago Bears. They probably wouldn't be in the Super Bowl if they hadn't drafted punt returner Devin Hester in the second round and defensive end Mark Anderson in the fifth round. Hester wasn't a starter at Miami. He ranked 13th last year in punt returns, but he was a playe without a position and a disappointment to a degree. Anderson was a late-bloomer at Alabama, but not a very productive player, at least until his senior year. But there was some special talent there. That's why Hester and Anderson might have been better this past season than any of the Packers' draft picks, including Hawk and Jennings, who were highly productive players in college. Will Hester and Anderson be better down the road? That we don't know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff of White Bear Lake, MN - As a long time subscriber to PFW, I always enjoyed reading Joel Buchsbaum's analyses. Besides watching a lot of film, why was he so well respected around the NFL. Hav ing seen and heard him talk on TV a couple times, I'm surprised any of the macho NFL execs would take him seriously. Do you know the cause of his death. I would like to see an article from you about him if you met him or knew him. Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - Jeff, there was a great feature written about Joel shortly after he died by a writer with the Dallas Morning News. Do a Google with Joel's name and it should come up. I'm in Miami and don't have the story here, and the signal strength in my room is so low, it takes forever to do a Google search. That's why this chat is so slow. But, anyway, if you can't find it, email me next week and I'll give you the headline and author of the story. It explains how Joel had all these connections around the league. I think Belichick was quoted in the story, saying Buchsbaum's draft and player ratings, among all the amateurs, were the only ones worth a hoot. One of the editors at PFW told me he visited Joel's apartment once and that it happened to be on a day when Joel was helping negotiate a trade between two teams. I talked to Joel countless times, but never met him. By all accounts, he was frail and looked like anything but a football player or even coach. But I think people in the game had tremendous respect for his work ethic and his knowledge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jack of Denver - After watching the NFL network's program on the 1966 Packers, it seems like Willie Davis was the anchor and most important player on the defense, similar to Reggie White. Was that true or were they just focusing on him? Also, they made the rookie RB the highest paid rookie ever. Was that ever in the league or in team history?
A: Cliff Christl - Davis was certainly a key player, but I think if you talked to five or six players or others from that period, you'd get five or six different answers. Some also might say Nitschke, Adderly, Jordan, Wood, maybe even Dave Robinson. I believe Donny Anderson's rookie contract may have been the largest ever. That was at the height of competiton between the AFL and NFL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Lord Jim of Minneapolis - What's your take on offensive lineman being underrepresented in the Hall of Fame vs "skill players" when one considers that the offensive line represents 5 of the 11 players on the field)? Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - I think there are some offensive linemen who have been overlooked. Mike Kenn, the former Atlanta tackle, would be No. 1 on my list. And I think you'll see that change. More linemen will get in over the next five to 10 years. It hasn't been that long since a premium was placed on left tackles. That all changed when Lawrence Taylor came in the league. So it will be awhile before guys like Roaf and Ogden and Pace and some others are eligible. Larry Allen will be an automatic five years after he retires. But there haven't been a lot of dominating offensive linemen. In college, the most talented linemen usually are put on defense. And other than left tackle, it's not an area where NFL teams place a lot of priority. Most of the best offensive lines include late-round picks, castoffs, etc. A team needs a good offensive line to win, but they aren't playmakers. So other than the Minnesota Vikings, teams don't spend lavishly on guards or even centers. And they don't normally draft offensive linemen high unless they're left tackles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Randy of Onalaska, WI - Cliff. I often read that you feel that situational substitution is bad for the game. I'm too young to remember much about the NFL before 1980. Please explain the effect situational has had on the game. Also, the ability to use the entire roster and make the right substitutions seems to be one of the reasons that Belichick is a great coach. Your thoughts? Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - In the 1960s, during the Lombardi Era, teams basically played with 11 players on offense and 11 on defense. They lived with players' weaknesses. If a team had a linebacker who could play the run, but couldn't cover against the pass, so be it. He still played first, second and third down. As a spectator, you could watch matchups. Jerry Kramer was the Packers' right guard. Alex Karras was the Lions' left defensive tackle. They lined up opposite each other essentially every single snap of every game they played against each other. The same two corners covered the same two wide receivers every down, although teams did play a lot of zone. Today, Jason Spitz, the Packers' right guard, might face two, three, four defensive linemen over the course of a game: A good run player on first down, a good pass rusher on third down, another guy for a series here and there; and maybe even the starting defensive tackles will flop sides at times. A lot of starting linebackers in the league might not play 50% of the snaps. I just thought it was a purer game, a better game to watch. Back then, the same two running backs usually got all the carries; the two wide receivers and tight end got all the catches. Now, most teams rotate two or three featured runners; eight to 10 players catch passes. It's really a game of bit players except for the quarterbacks and the superstars. And, thankfully, to this point, situation substitution hasn't hit the offensive line. As for Belichick, he certainly makes use of a lot of players, but so does everybody else. I think the record speaks for itself. Bill Belichick became a great coach when Tom Brady became his quarterback. My guess is that if he had continued with Drew Bledsoe in New England, Belichick probably would have been fired again without ever winning a Super Bowl. He had a losing record before Brady. He'd probably still have a losing record without Brady.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Evan Argall of Chicago - Hello Cliff. CB is one of the most physically demanding positions of the field. That being said, what are the chances Harris and Woodson are SIGNIFICANTLY worse next year than they were this year. Given todays advancements in nutrition and training, you would think these guys would not just "lose it" overnight, right?
A: Cliff Christl - They're reaching the age where they're not going to get any better. They might play a little better if they're healthier. But they're also at that age where they'll be more susceptible to injuries. Plus, Harris is kind of a one-trick pony. He plays physical, in-your-face, man-to-man defense. That allows him to compensate for lack of speed and probably has extended his career by a year or two or more. But the next step he loses might be the last that he can afford to lose. I could see him losing it quickly. He fits the mold. He's not a great athlete for that position.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mr. Know-It-All of Lunatic Fringe, WI - Hello Cliff, The Packers finished the regular season a respectable 8-8 last year with close to 30 of 53 first or second year players, plus some other young prospects on IR. With all of that youth on a slightly deeper team this offseason, and the substantial amount of cap room the Packers have to help fill some holes, will this be the year that TT switches gears and actually moves UP in the draft? There are some big name guys from top programs like Adrian Peterson or Dwayne Jarrett - real playmakers - that probably won't be there at 16. They have some good younger guys everywhere but RB, WR, TE, and CB already. They need at least one each of those in the draft, plus maybe a another QB. I don't think they need 10 or even all 7 of their picks more than they need a guy who can score. 5 Picks and $30 mil in cap dollars should be enough to get them better without risking the future. How do you think this offseason will go down?
A: Cliff Christl - I doubt if the Packers would be able to offer what it would take to move up to get an exceptional playmaker. Those are the players every team covets. I doubt if the Packers could move from 16th to even fifth by offering their second- and third-round picks in addition to the 16th. I don't have the point value for draft picks with me here in Miami. But I'm guessing that the top one, two, three, maybe even four or five picks in the draft would be worth more on that chart than maybe even all of the Packers' choices combined. Again, I don't have the chart here. But because of the premium teams place on the type of prime playmaker that you're talking about, those first few choices in the draft are worth out of sight numbers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mark of Seattle - The Packers 2007 season (unfortunately) depends a lot on their older players continuing to play at a high level. That said, how much control do the Packers have in the training regimen and diet of their players in the off-season? If the answer is "none," who has a history of arriving at training camp in tip-top condition? Who has a history of ariving out-of-shape?
A: Cliff Christl - I think all teams today have off-season training programs and very few players show up out of shape. There's too much money involved. Almost all the "tubs of lard" covered in the Packer History Q&A were from a time period when players made $5,000 to $20,000. If they showed up fat, no big deal, they could make as much driving truck.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John of Milwaukee - Cliff, I always enjoy your chats. I'm unfamiliar with former offensive line coaches ascending to offensive coordinators. IIRC, McCarthy has gone with two. Is this a trend in the NFL or in any way significant?
A: Cliff Christl - Good question. Obviously, offensive coordinators under head coaches who run the offense play a limited role. Sherman Lewis did under Mike Holmgren. Kubiak did under Shanahan, etc. I don't think a lot of offensive line coaches have been coordinators for this reason: My sense has always been that people in the league are reluctant to have ex-linemen calling plays. That's partly why they were linemen: Nobody wanted them calling plays. But when the head coach calls the plays, I don't think it matters. Again, I don't have any reference material here, so I'm not sure of this. But some of the longtime, highly respected offensive line coaches, such as Joe Bugel under Joe Gibbs and maybe Jim Hanifan when he was in St. Louis, might have been coordinators.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jesse B of Atlanta - Cliff, I watched the NFL Total Access film of the Packers first superbowl. I was eleven years old during that season and still remember watching that team. Thats when my enthusiasm for Packer Football first began, even though I was living in Redskin's territory. How many of those hall of fame players on that team would be considered special players today?
A: Cliff Christl - Good question. By then, Taylor and Hornung were on their way out. And I don't know if even in their younger days they'd fit a pro scheme today. Where would Taylor play? Could Hornung play halfback with his limited speed? Jim Ringo was an undersized center even back then, although he had been traded before the first Super Bowl. I think Forrest Gregg was like a 250-pound tackle. Bart Starr might have been able to play today, but I'm not even sure of that. Probably more of the defensive players: Herb Adderley, maybe Willie Wood, maybe Henry Jordan and Willie Davis as situational players. But I think Davis and Jordan both might have weighed under 250. Nitschke might have been a one or two-down player. That's what I mean about situation substitution. Life moves on. If players are bigger and faster today, and there would be no room for a Hornung or Gregg or Willie Davis because of size and speed limitations, so be it. But most of those players wouldn't even be fulltime players. And Taylor's position, a running fullback, doesn't even exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bill C of Sarasota,FL - Talent procurement is the primary job of Ted Thompson...that being said, why don't the Packers and other teams spend more money on their scouting efforts. I've got to believe that the cost of ten more full-time scouts pales by comparison to one first round draft pick bust! Am I missing something here?
A: Cliff Christl - I think teams have increased their scouting budgets considerably over the past 10 to 25 years. I think most teams have at least 10 people out scouting players. How many opinions do you need? Again, I think if you get too many involved it can lead to paralysis from analysis. And teams are always going to make mistakes. I don't care how much time and effort one puts into scouting, hiring for a business or whatever, you're not going to bat a thousand or even .500. There's just no way of predicting human behavior or how personalities will evolve.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Todd of Hudson - Cliff, I read an article once where the writer described a moment in a practice session where the leadership of the team transferred from Sterling Sharpe to Brett Favre. It think it was soon after Favre signed his first contract extension. Favre threw a pass to Sharpe that was catchable, but not perfect, and Sharpe teased Favre about it in the huddle afterwards. Sharpe said he should be able to throw better than that since he was making big money now. According to the story Favre bristled and told him to keep his mouth shut and just catch the ball, and from that moment forward Favre owned the huddle and the leadership of the team transferred from Sharpe to Favre. This got me thinking about the current team. In the near future or possibly very near future if he retires, the leadership will need to be assumed by someone else. Who is that player going to be? Right now I don't find him on the roster? I wonder who it will be and where will he come from? What will the teams identity be? Obviously the Packers will miss Favre's talent. Since 1992 opponents have had to play against Brett Favre and the Green Bay Packers. After he retires opponents will just be playing against the Green Bay Packers. The latter sounds less intimidating to me.
A: Cliff Christl - If Favre retired tomorrow, it would be a faceless team. I'm sure the Packers are hoping that Aaron Rodgers will be the guy. But to command respect of his teammates, he'll have to prove his worth on the field. And that's not going to be easy following Brett Favre. For as long as Rodgers play, he will be compared to Favre. And so will the next guy and the next guy and the next guy, etc., etc.. etc. That's partly why I think it could take a long time before the Packers find another great quarterback. The burden on Favre's successors is going to be enormous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bobby D of Rice Lake - Hi Cliff, if Favre retires do you think the Packers should sign a veteran QB in free agency, or go with Rodgers (assuming he wins the job in camp) and let the cips fall (2-14) and find out once and for all if he can play? Thanks!
A: Cliff Christl - I think you play Rodgers and see what happens. They're aren't going to find anybody in free agency who is going to lead them to the promised land. So why try? Sign a veteran backup, and live or die with Rodgers for a year, maybe two and then go on from there. It might turn out like it did in Denver with Jake Plummer. After two, three years, the Packers might realize that Rodgers isn't the guy. But he has shown enough in practice to at least warrant the opportunity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: JP of Orlando - Cliff, It sounds like Favre is talking to many sources in trying to determine his future and will very likely make his announcement next week. Would you agree and do you think Thompson has spoken to him or deferred to McCarthy?
A: Cliff Christl - I understand Favre has announced that he's coming back. I'm guessing that once he got away from the game, he had a change of heart again. Thanks for all the questions.
Cliff Christl
Live from Miami, site of Super Bowl XLI, Cliff answered your Packers and Super Bowl questions in our regular Packer Insider chat. NOTE: The Favre news came only at the end of the chat.
Q: Josh of Madison, Wi - How do you feel about our Running Back situation? Ahman is getting old, Morency doesn't really seem to fit the 'feature' back, and it 'appears' the 15 teams above us in the draft don't really need an RB. Adrian Peterson runs too tall in my opinion, and probably will be taken earlier than Marshawn Lynch, who I believe looks real promising. We could use him like Maurice Jones-Drew. Thoughts or insight? Appreciate your time! Thanks Cliff!
A: Cliff Christl - Josh, you're up first. I think running back is certainly a need position and an outstanding rookie running back can have a big impact. If you look back at the recent history of the NFL, certainly the last 35 years or so, rookies have had more impact at the running back position than any other. I don't know if Favre's decision will affect Ted Thompson's thinking on the draft. Probably not. But if Favre retires, the Packers would have to win with defense and a running game. And a great running back probably would make Favre a better quarterback if he plays another year. But keep in mind, that at No. 16, a team's chances of drafting a great runner aren't that good. Most of the rookie running backs that have made a huge impact -- Barry Sanders, Billy Sims, Earl Campbell, Eric Dickerson, etc. -- have been top five choices. Running backs of that caliber rarely last until 16.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Terry Huebner of Hinsdale, IL - Why do you think guys like Jason Horton and Mike Hawkins didn't make it, while others do? Horton and Hawkins had some physical ability, but couldn't seem to get it done. Al Harris doesn't appear as quick or fast as either of those 2, yet he is very good. What's the difference? How do these 2 compare to Patrick Dendy, who is still around? Also, did Horton and Hawkins get picked up by anyone and how did Ahmad Carroll fare after the Packers cut him? Doesn't this just show how difficult player evaluation is? What teams are looking for in the end is football players, not just guys who do great in drills at the combine.
A: Cliff Christl - That's all true. That's largely why GMs, coaches, etc. all believe that playmakers make the difference in the NFL. Don't get me wrong. You need a good supporting cast as well. But there really isn't much difference between guys like Horton and Hawkins, and the players who make it. Teams pick players off the streets and they do just fine. Some even turn into solid starters. Hawkins and Horton might make it next year, the year after, two years from now. A lot of it is fit. The great players could play anywhere. That's why they're special. But of the other 95 to 99% of the the players, some fit different systems better. Some players perform better depending on the talent around them. Do you remember when the Packers drafted defensive ends Mike Butler and Ezra Johnson in the first round. Neither one had a great career; and Butler probably didn't live up to where he was drafted. But I thought they were two talented players. Yet I think both underachieved, although Johnson had a couple outstanding seasons. Why? I thought a big part of it was that the Packers lined up some abominable DTs next to them during that period; there were no veteran defenders to lead the way for Butler and Johnson; and the defensive scheme wasn't always a good fit for them. But back to the corners you mentioned. Harris strikes me as a pro's pro. He knows his limitations and plays accordingly. To me that's often what separates all the players who aren't superstars. They learn to play to their strengths and compensate for their weaknesses. In a sense, they play smart. If you'd recall, Hawkins and Horton came from itinerant backgrounds. Horton also had some serious health issues. That may have prevented him from being in the condition that he needed to be to make up for what ever he lacked in talent. But maybe the most important thing of all was that Dendy played at Rice, a top-notch school. Maybe that's the only difference: Maybe Dendy is smarter and has a better grip on reality and life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ann the NHPackerfan of Amherst, NH - Cliff, In a recent blog or chat, you asked rhetorically (in so many words), who remembers the Super Bowl losers? I got the impression that getting to the Super Bowl didn't count unless a team on it. But I beg to differ -- not my own argument, but in the general tenor of sportswriters. It is common to read about a teams (Green Bay's, for example) Super Bowl teams, or that so-and-so has been to x number of Super Bowls, winning y of them (Mike Holmgrem, 1 and 3). Marv Levy's teams were in the Super Bowl 4 straight years, which is now generally acknowledged as no small achievement. It may be held against a coach, team, or player that they never won a Super Bowl, but getting to a Super Bowl is indeed something of an achievement in itself. I would gladly make a deal w/ the devil -- let Favre have a SB appearance as his last game next year, even if they lose. Thanks for the offseason chats. Ann (who admits she still cannot watch or read about SB XXXII)
A: Cliff Christl - Vince Lombardi always said there were only two places in the NFL: First and last I'd agree. Getting to the Super Bowl doesn't mean that you're even the second-best team, third-best team, whatever. No matter what happens Sunday, I think the four best teams in the NFL this year were Indianapolis, New England, San Diego and Baltimore. The Bears probably match up better against the Colts than the other three and might win if Hester has a big day or some fluke developments. But they're no better than the fifth best team at this point, minus Harris and Brown.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Paul of Viroqua, WI - What's your opinion of the way Peyton Manning runs up and down the line shouting audibles? I don't think I've ever seen another QB quite so "visible" in shouting out audibles; does he just have a weak voice or do you think he might be "showboating" to let everyone know "he's the man!!"
A: Cliff Christl - They run a no-huddle at times and they always play in a dome or on the road. Also, when they huddle, maybe the plays have options that he has to call at the line. Maybe some times he's calling dummy audibles. It's my understanding that he has more leeway than most quarterbacks in terms of what play is eventually run. I don't think it's showboating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jack of Sacramento - Cliff, In your study of the draft which is the better predictor of success in the NFL, production in college or unrealized potential ?
A: Cliff Christl - I think the best players bring a combination of the two. It's probably safer to draft players with average talent that were productive in college, but the rewards can be much greater when teams take a chance on a player with a checkered past, but great talent. Again, that goes back to the Dallas Cowboys and Tom Landry when they were the model by which other teams were compared in the scouting area. They made more mistakes than anyone because they gambled probably on more picks than anyone. It was their theory that even if they were right only one out of 10 times, if that one player was special -- a big-time playmaker -- it was worth all the other mistakes because those are the players who make the difference, not the solid, productive guys who have no chance of being special. Look at the Chicago Bears. They probably wouldn't be in the Super Bowl if they hadn't drafted punt returner Devin Hester in the second round and defensive end Mark Anderson in the fifth round. Hester wasn't a starter at Miami. He ranked 13th last year in punt returns, but he was a playe without a position and a disappointment to a degree. Anderson was a late-bloomer at Alabama, but not a very productive player, at least until his senior year. But there was some special talent there. That's why Hester and Anderson might have been better this past season than any of the Packers' draft picks, including Hawk and Jennings, who were highly productive players in college. Will Hester and Anderson be better down the road? That we don't know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff of White Bear Lake, MN - As a long time subscriber to PFW, I always enjoyed reading Joel Buchsbaum's analyses. Besides watching a lot of film, why was he so well respected around the NFL. Hav ing seen and heard him talk on TV a couple times, I'm surprised any of the macho NFL execs would take him seriously. Do you know the cause of his death. I would like to see an article from you about him if you met him or knew him. Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - Jeff, there was a great feature written about Joel shortly after he died by a writer with the Dallas Morning News. Do a Google with Joel's name and it should come up. I'm in Miami and don't have the story here, and the signal strength in my room is so low, it takes forever to do a Google search. That's why this chat is so slow. But, anyway, if you can't find it, email me next week and I'll give you the headline and author of the story. It explains how Joel had all these connections around the league. I think Belichick was quoted in the story, saying Buchsbaum's draft and player ratings, among all the amateurs, were the only ones worth a hoot. One of the editors at PFW told me he visited Joel's apartment once and that it happened to be on a day when Joel was helping negotiate a trade between two teams. I talked to Joel countless times, but never met him. By all accounts, he was frail and looked like anything but a football player or even coach. But I think people in the game had tremendous respect for his work ethic and his knowledge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jack of Denver - After watching the NFL network's program on the 1966 Packers, it seems like Willie Davis was the anchor and most important player on the defense, similar to Reggie White. Was that true or were they just focusing on him? Also, they made the rookie RB the highest paid rookie ever. Was that ever in the league or in team history?
A: Cliff Christl - Davis was certainly a key player, but I think if you talked to five or six players or others from that period, you'd get five or six different answers. Some also might say Nitschke, Adderly, Jordan, Wood, maybe even Dave Robinson. I believe Donny Anderson's rookie contract may have been the largest ever. That was at the height of competiton between the AFL and NFL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Lord Jim of Minneapolis - What's your take on offensive lineman being underrepresented in the Hall of Fame vs "skill players" when one considers that the offensive line represents 5 of the 11 players on the field)? Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - I think there are some offensive linemen who have been overlooked. Mike Kenn, the former Atlanta tackle, would be No. 1 on my list. And I think you'll see that change. More linemen will get in over the next five to 10 years. It hasn't been that long since a premium was placed on left tackles. That all changed when Lawrence Taylor came in the league. So it will be awhile before guys like Roaf and Ogden and Pace and some others are eligible. Larry Allen will be an automatic five years after he retires. But there haven't been a lot of dominating offensive linemen. In college, the most talented linemen usually are put on defense. And other than left tackle, it's not an area where NFL teams place a lot of priority. Most of the best offensive lines include late-round picks, castoffs, etc. A team needs a good offensive line to win, but they aren't playmakers. So other than the Minnesota Vikings, teams don't spend lavishly on guards or even centers. And they don't normally draft offensive linemen high unless they're left tackles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Randy of Onalaska, WI - Cliff. I often read that you feel that situational substitution is bad for the game. I'm too young to remember much about the NFL before 1980. Please explain the effect situational has had on the game. Also, the ability to use the entire roster and make the right substitutions seems to be one of the reasons that Belichick is a great coach. Your thoughts? Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - In the 1960s, during the Lombardi Era, teams basically played with 11 players on offense and 11 on defense. They lived with players' weaknesses. If a team had a linebacker who could play the run, but couldn't cover against the pass, so be it. He still played first, second and third down. As a spectator, you could watch matchups. Jerry Kramer was the Packers' right guard. Alex Karras was the Lions' left defensive tackle. They lined up opposite each other essentially every single snap of every game they played against each other. The same two corners covered the same two wide receivers every down, although teams did play a lot of zone. Today, Jason Spitz, the Packers' right guard, might face two, three, four defensive linemen over the course of a game: A good run player on first down, a good pass rusher on third down, another guy for a series here and there; and maybe even the starting defensive tackles will flop sides at times. A lot of starting linebackers in the league might not play 50% of the snaps. I just thought it was a purer game, a better game to watch. Back then, the same two running backs usually got all the carries; the two wide receivers and tight end got all the catches. Now, most teams rotate two or three featured runners; eight to 10 players catch passes. It's really a game of bit players except for the quarterbacks and the superstars. And, thankfully, to this point, situation substitution hasn't hit the offensive line. As for Belichick, he certainly makes use of a lot of players, but so does everybody else. I think the record speaks for itself. Bill Belichick became a great coach when Tom Brady became his quarterback. My guess is that if he had continued with Drew Bledsoe in New England, Belichick probably would have been fired again without ever winning a Super Bowl. He had a losing record before Brady. He'd probably still have a losing record without Brady.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Evan Argall of Chicago - Hello Cliff. CB is one of the most physically demanding positions of the field. That being said, what are the chances Harris and Woodson are SIGNIFICANTLY worse next year than they were this year. Given todays advancements in nutrition and training, you would think these guys would not just "lose it" overnight, right?
A: Cliff Christl - They're reaching the age where they're not going to get any better. They might play a little better if they're healthier. But they're also at that age where they'll be more susceptible to injuries. Plus, Harris is kind of a one-trick pony. He plays physical, in-your-face, man-to-man defense. That allows him to compensate for lack of speed and probably has extended his career by a year or two or more. But the next step he loses might be the last that he can afford to lose. I could see him losing it quickly. He fits the mold. He's not a great athlete for that position.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mr. Know-It-All of Lunatic Fringe, WI - Hello Cliff, The Packers finished the regular season a respectable 8-8 last year with close to 30 of 53 first or second year players, plus some other young prospects on IR. With all of that youth on a slightly deeper team this offseason, and the substantial amount of cap room the Packers have to help fill some holes, will this be the year that TT switches gears and actually moves UP in the draft? There are some big name guys from top programs like Adrian Peterson or Dwayne Jarrett - real playmakers - that probably won't be there at 16. They have some good younger guys everywhere but RB, WR, TE, and CB already. They need at least one each of those in the draft, plus maybe a another QB. I don't think they need 10 or even all 7 of their picks more than they need a guy who can score. 5 Picks and $30 mil in cap dollars should be enough to get them better without risking the future. How do you think this offseason will go down?
A: Cliff Christl - I doubt if the Packers would be able to offer what it would take to move up to get an exceptional playmaker. Those are the players every team covets. I doubt if the Packers could move from 16th to even fifth by offering their second- and third-round picks in addition to the 16th. I don't have the point value for draft picks with me here in Miami. But I'm guessing that the top one, two, three, maybe even four or five picks in the draft would be worth more on that chart than maybe even all of the Packers' choices combined. Again, I don't have the chart here. But because of the premium teams place on the type of prime playmaker that you're talking about, those first few choices in the draft are worth out of sight numbers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mark of Seattle - The Packers 2007 season (unfortunately) depends a lot on their older players continuing to play at a high level. That said, how much control do the Packers have in the training regimen and diet of their players in the off-season? If the answer is "none," who has a history of arriving at training camp in tip-top condition? Who has a history of ariving out-of-shape?
A: Cliff Christl - I think all teams today have off-season training programs and very few players show up out of shape. There's too much money involved. Almost all the "tubs of lard" covered in the Packer History Q&A were from a time period when players made $5,000 to $20,000. If they showed up fat, no big deal, they could make as much driving truck.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John of Milwaukee - Cliff, I always enjoy your chats. I'm unfamiliar with former offensive line coaches ascending to offensive coordinators. IIRC, McCarthy has gone with two. Is this a trend in the NFL or in any way significant?
A: Cliff Christl - Good question. Obviously, offensive coordinators under head coaches who run the offense play a limited role. Sherman Lewis did under Mike Holmgren. Kubiak did under Shanahan, etc. I don't think a lot of offensive line coaches have been coordinators for this reason: My sense has always been that people in the league are reluctant to have ex-linemen calling plays. That's partly why they were linemen: Nobody wanted them calling plays. But when the head coach calls the plays, I don't think it matters. Again, I don't have any reference material here, so I'm not sure of this. But some of the longtime, highly respected offensive line coaches, such as Joe Bugel under Joe Gibbs and maybe Jim Hanifan when he was in St. Louis, might have been coordinators.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jesse B of Atlanta - Cliff, I watched the NFL Total Access film of the Packers first superbowl. I was eleven years old during that season and still remember watching that team. Thats when my enthusiasm for Packer Football first began, even though I was living in Redskin's territory. How many of those hall of fame players on that team would be considered special players today?
A: Cliff Christl - Good question. By then, Taylor and Hornung were on their way out. And I don't know if even in their younger days they'd fit a pro scheme today. Where would Taylor play? Could Hornung play halfback with his limited speed? Jim Ringo was an undersized center even back then, although he had been traded before the first Super Bowl. I think Forrest Gregg was like a 250-pound tackle. Bart Starr might have been able to play today, but I'm not even sure of that. Probably more of the defensive players: Herb Adderley, maybe Willie Wood, maybe Henry Jordan and Willie Davis as situational players. But I think Davis and Jordan both might have weighed under 250. Nitschke might have been a one or two-down player. That's what I mean about situation substitution. Life moves on. If players are bigger and faster today, and there would be no room for a Hornung or Gregg or Willie Davis because of size and speed limitations, so be it. But most of those players wouldn't even be fulltime players. And Taylor's position, a running fullback, doesn't even exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bill C of Sarasota,FL - Talent procurement is the primary job of Ted Thompson...that being said, why don't the Packers and other teams spend more money on their scouting efforts. I've got to believe that the cost of ten more full-time scouts pales by comparison to one first round draft pick bust! Am I missing something here?
A: Cliff Christl - I think teams have increased their scouting budgets considerably over the past 10 to 25 years. I think most teams have at least 10 people out scouting players. How many opinions do you need? Again, I think if you get too many involved it can lead to paralysis from analysis. And teams are always going to make mistakes. I don't care how much time and effort one puts into scouting, hiring for a business or whatever, you're not going to bat a thousand or even .500. There's just no way of predicting human behavior or how personalities will evolve.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Todd of Hudson - Cliff, I read an article once where the writer described a moment in a practice session where the leadership of the team transferred from Sterling Sharpe to Brett Favre. It think it was soon after Favre signed his first contract extension. Favre threw a pass to Sharpe that was catchable, but not perfect, and Sharpe teased Favre about it in the huddle afterwards. Sharpe said he should be able to throw better than that since he was making big money now. According to the story Favre bristled and told him to keep his mouth shut and just catch the ball, and from that moment forward Favre owned the huddle and the leadership of the team transferred from Sharpe to Favre. This got me thinking about the current team. In the near future or possibly very near future if he retires, the leadership will need to be assumed by someone else. Who is that player going to be? Right now I don't find him on the roster? I wonder who it will be and where will he come from? What will the teams identity be? Obviously the Packers will miss Favre's talent. Since 1992 opponents have had to play against Brett Favre and the Green Bay Packers. After he retires opponents will just be playing against the Green Bay Packers. The latter sounds less intimidating to me.
A: Cliff Christl - If Favre retired tomorrow, it would be a faceless team. I'm sure the Packers are hoping that Aaron Rodgers will be the guy. But to command respect of his teammates, he'll have to prove his worth on the field. And that's not going to be easy following Brett Favre. For as long as Rodgers play, he will be compared to Favre. And so will the next guy and the next guy and the next guy, etc., etc.. etc. That's partly why I think it could take a long time before the Packers find another great quarterback. The burden on Favre's successors is going to be enormous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bobby D of Rice Lake - Hi Cliff, if Favre retires do you think the Packers should sign a veteran QB in free agency, or go with Rodgers (assuming he wins the job in camp) and let the cips fall (2-14) and find out once and for all if he can play? Thanks!
A: Cliff Christl - I think you play Rodgers and see what happens. They're aren't going to find anybody in free agency who is going to lead them to the promised land. So why try? Sign a veteran backup, and live or die with Rodgers for a year, maybe two and then go on from there. It might turn out like it did in Denver with Jake Plummer. After two, three years, the Packers might realize that Rodgers isn't the guy. But he has shown enough in practice to at least warrant the opportunity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: JP of Orlando - Cliff, It sounds like Favre is talking to many sources in trying to determine his future and will very likely make his announcement next week. Would you agree and do you think Thompson has spoken to him or deferred to McCarthy?
A: Cliff Christl - I understand Favre has announced that he's coming back. I'm guessing that once he got away from the game, he had a change of heart again. Thanks for all the questions.