motife
02-08-2007, 05:08 PM
Q: Kevin of Madison - Cliff, how serious is all this Randy Moss trade talk? Is this just unsupported rumors on message boards or is there a good chance this trade is going to happen? Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - Kevin, you posted the first question. We'll start with you. If a player of Moss' caliber becomes available, I can't imagine that the Packers wouldn't explore the possibility of trading for him. But Moss' cap number next year will be at least $10 million. My understanding is that Chris Mortensen also reported that the Raiders were seeking a third-round pick and a wide receiver. The Packers have two receivers with market value: Donald Driver and Greg Jennings. So would you trade a third and Jennings or Driver for a player who could potentially be as much a cancer as Terrell Owens has been in Philadelphia and Dallas? Also, Moss didn't play well and quit last year in Oakland. I'm assuming his lack of production stemmed largely from the Raiders' pathetic quarterback play. But is Moss still a premier receiver? I'm guessing he is. But I don't think the addition of Randy Moss is going to turn the Packers into a Super Bowl contender.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Doug Hauseman of Poughkeepsie - Cliff, I love your columns but don't have to agree with all of them. On your most recent piece you claim Favre could not have won a championship with the Colts when any QB in the NFL would have beat the Bears with the Colt's level of dominance on the line of scrimmage. I submit to you that Manning outside a dome, protected by rookie linemen, one average receiver and everyone else either staying in to block or running the wrong routes would not have won 8 games as Favre did. Your comparing apples and oranges with one player surrounded by championship players and the other surrounded by a team that might not have won 2 games without their veteran QB.
A: Cliff Christl - You're free to disagree with me. But how closely did you watch the game? How much do you know about the Colts' personnel? Their offensive line is average. Their two guards are run-of-the-mill at best. How many false start penalties did they have Sunday? Left tackle Tarik Glenn is a good pass blocker, but he's not a dominant player. Ryan Diem, the right tackle, got hurt and was replaced at the start of the second half. Center Jeff Saturday is a Pro Bowl player, but he's an overachiever. Again, he's not some stud lineman. So there's no way that group could dominate the Chicago Bears' defensive line or just about any defensive line if all things were even. But they weren't even. Because of Peyton Manning, the Bears are playing with their two safeties almost in the end zone seats. Basically, the Bears were playing with seven in the box. Plus, without going back over every play, it seemed to me that the Colts ran a fair number of times on passing downs when the Bears were in nickel. So, yes, the Colts dominated the line. And I admit here that I haven't watched the replay. But, no doubt, the Colts had eight blocking seven or seven blocking seven most of the time. On the flip side, the Colts' defense appeared to be playing run first with a safety cheating into the box. So they have eight defenders vs. seven blockers, whereas the Bears' front is outnumbered. Manning is who creates that mismatch. I remember talking to Jeff Jagodzinski after the Miami game this year and I remarked that even after the Packers made their adjustment to give Daryn Colledge help against Jason Taylor that there were also times when Colledge blocked Taylor one-on-one in the passing game. As Jagodzinski explained, those probably were in running situations where Miami's defensive call required that Taylor play run first. Under those circumstances, as Jagodzinski explained, even Colledge, a rookie playing his only game at left tackle, should be able to pass block Taylor, especially if the Packers ran a play-action fake. But put Colledge up against Taylor one-on-one on third-and-long and it was no contest. Peyton Manning is a much more accurate passer than Brett Favre, at this stage. It's not even close. And because of Manning's ability to throw the ball, it makes it easy for the Colts to run the ball with an average line and average backs. You might not want to admit it, but it all goes back to the quarterback.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Kenny Jay of Reno - Cliff, My question is this. Since Favre announced his return I hear former NFL players say, "it's great, Brett should keep playing as long as he can..." but I hear quite a few sports writers saying the complete opposite, that he should get out. Specifically who comes to mind is Rick Reily from ESPN. He stated that Favre should have gotten out years ago. What's up with the writers, why do they want Favre to get out. Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - Don't know. I can only speak for myself. It made no difference to me if Favre retired or played again. I figure it's his life and none of my business.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike of Milwaukee - Cliff - I am really starting to dislike the Super Bowl. The people that are more excited about the commercials than the game....the silly halftime shows....media day....the focus on parties rather than the game...too much style and too little substance. I'll even go as far as saying that the game should NOT be played at a neutral location. I understand it's all about money, but is the NFL alienating core fans by catering to much to the soccer moms who watch the Super Bowl but can't name two players? Is this a good long term strategy?
A: Cliff Christl - I agree with you. I think it's a turnoff. In fact, I don't understand why people don't Tivo -- is that how you spell it? we have it, but because I'm a technical dinosaur my wife has to set the recordings for me -- all games. If you watch them live, you're not watching football, you're watching commercials. But back to your question. For the biggest game of the year, the NFL essentially shuts out the average fan and says, 'We don't give two hoots about you,' and caters only to those with corporate jets, six and seven-figure salaries, and connections in high places.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Digger of Andover - Hi Cliff: You've often stated that Moss is a talent the Packers should covet. Do you still believe it? What would you give up for Moss right now if you were TT? Would Oakland take it?
A: Cliff Christl - I'd maybe considering giving up a third-round pick. Technically, Moss isn't a free agent. But the Colts were once again proof that you don't buy championships. You build through the draft. Jeff Saturday and Adam Vinatieri were free agent signings. But their other free agents were basically role players, subs and another borderline starter or two. I don't think trading for Moss will result in a Super Bowl victory for the Packers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: SCOTT SIELEMAN of OELWEIN IOWA - WHERE DID THIS CRAP RUMOR COME FROM SOME DANG RADIO TALK SHOW IN MINNESOTA PICKED UP BY OTHERS ONLINE !!!? COME ON WE DONT NEED THAT TRASH AND CANCER IN GREEN BAY!!! WE CAN WIN WITH WINNERS WE DONT NEED LOSERS TO WIN!!! COULD U SEE R. M. CONFRONT BRETT BECAUSE HE DID NOT GET A PASS THROWN TO HIM!? OR RUNNING DOWN A LOCAL POLICE OFFICER ! A GUY THAT ADMITS TO ONLY PLAYING ON CERTAIN PLAYS DOES NOT BELONG IN TITLETOWN USA!!! PACKERS RULE!
A: Cliff Christl - I'm sure you're not alone in thinking that way. And maybe the Packers will stay clear of Moss for those reasons. But my guess is they'll at least inquire and then weigh the negatives against his talent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bill of West Allis - Cliff, I saw where you mentioned Joel Buchsbaum recently. Did you know him well? What was he like behind all that draft/personnel analysis? He seemed to be a mysterious character.
A: Cliff Christl - Never met him personally. Don't know a lot of people who did. But I talked to him numerous times and he seemed like a good, decent person consumed by his work. Check out a story on Buchsbaum written by Juliet Macur of the Dallas Morning News. It should come up on a Google search. Here's what Bill Belichick said about Buchsbaum in that story: "There's a thousand people out there that write draft books, and they aren't worth the paper they're written on. But Joel? He was something special." That's why I put stock in Buchsbaum's ratings prior to his death and I dismiss all of today's so-called draft experts. As Belichick said, you're paying for something that isn't worth the paper that it's written on. And my suggestion would be: Remember that come draft day. Just because someone sells you a book for $25 or appears on TV doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. It just means there are a lot of suckers out there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: S. Jain of nashville, TN - What was the main argument that kept Paul Tagliabue out of the Hall of Fame? What is your overall opinion of the class that got in.
A: Cliff Christl - I thought it was a good class. I wasn't sold on Hickerson and he was the only finalist I didn't vote for. I felt that previous committees had set precedent in picking all-decade or all-era teams that Kramer and Kuechenberg were more deserving among guards from the '60s and '70s. But I also recognize that others thought Hickerson was better. So I accept the decision of the voters. My feeling is that Tagliabue deserves to be in the Hall. I voted for him in all the preliminary voting, but I didn't believe that it was necessary we induct him this year. And because there were some players that I felt strongly about; and two others Charlie Sanders, the other senior nominee, and Roger Wehlri, who was in his last year of eligibility as a modern-era player, who basically were getting their last chance before the committee; I didn't vote for Tagliabue this time. But I plan to in the future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: dan of milwaukee - what do u think about this roster off.brett,driver,jenning,jarret from usc,fergusen,and robinson or would u pick a running back first and pick Wide-receiver in the second round or defense in this draft also because im all for defense but its are offense that needs the help but i think we can pick up enough defense in free agency and pick offense in the draft because i see more potential then defense all we need is one or two receivers and a running back of the future and on defense one safety a third corner and we do have the 16th pick 30 million or so dollars my honest opinion we will go to the playoffs and more and brett is coming back now they have enough time to get him some playmakers mark my words 2007 we are going to the playoffs
A: Cliff Christl - As I wrote in my last column, there's nothing wrong with pipedreams. And, yes, if the Packers traded for Moss and he produced; drafted a great running back at 16th; and A.J. Hawk blossomed into a superstar next year, the Packers could be a force in the NFC playoffs and maybe have a shot at the Super Bowl. But that's not all going to happen. Oh, it could I suppose. But there's about as much chance of it happening as you or I winning the next $200 million Powerball.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Carl of Elk Mound - Cliff, what happened to Chris Havel at the GBPG?
A: Cliff Christl - He was fired.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Trevor of Kenora - Hi Cliff-thank you for the chats. I have the impression that Favre is coming back in large part because of the improvement the team showed late in the season. Do you think there's a carryover effect for a franchise, based on how a team finished in the latter weeks of the previous season? After all, Miami was picked by some people to be a sleeper for the Super Bowl based on their '05 finish. Then again, the Pack finished well in Sherman's first year and went on to have two really good regular seasons. Your thoughts? Thanks!
A: Cliff Christl - I think you see some carryover with young teams. I think there was carryover with the Packers as they climbed the ladder from 1992 to 1996. I think there was some recent carryover with Cincinnati until Carson Palmer got hurt and everything blew up on them at the end of last season. But I don't think there'll be any carryover for the current Packers because their best players are their oldest players. I think they fall into the same category as Miami last year, except that the Packers have a good quarterback and the Dolphins didn't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Chris of Madison - What do you make of AJ Hawk, a rookie, leading the team in tackles? He flashed at times during the season and definitely looked like he was improving throughout the year. Was it more because of the number of plays he was in, the scheme, or something else?
A: Cliff Christl - He's a very good football player. He'll be an anchor for the Packers for years to come if he stays healthy. But will he become a great player? That remains to be seen. I feel certain of this. He'll never be another Lawrence Taylor. What I mean by that is I don't see him being the star of a Super Bowl champ, the way Taylor was. But Hawk might be the star of a defense that wins a Super Bowl if the team also has a great quarterback.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff of Minneapolis - While I hate to belabor the Randy Moss speculation, it raises an interesting question. You stated in your post-Super Bowl column that the difference between Peyton Manning and Rex Grossman was a matter of inches: Manning threw right where he needed to throw to allow his receivers to make a play while Grossman was just enough off for the play to fail. You also mentioned in that column that Favre had slipped from the "Great Quarterback" status to "Good Quarterback" status because of diminishing ability to get the ball right where he needed to. So if indeed Thompson were able to obtain a playmaking receiver like Moss, how much would Favre's diminishing (but still good) skills affect his receiver's ability to make plays?
A: Cliff Christl - Consistency is the name of the game in the NFL. There probably isn't a quarterback in the league who couldn't make a great throw on a particular play. Manning's accuracy is amazing. Watching him in the playoffs, it seems that almost every pass he throws is a perfect pass. On the other hand, Grossman might throw perfect passes half the time on his good days or a third of the time on other days or even worse on his bad days. But if they were at the right time -- and he had that opportunity in the Super Bowl -- he could make plays to win games. That's the difference between Favre of 10 years ago and Favre of today. His completion percentage this year was the lowest of his career. Don't get me wrong, he still throws some great passes, some passes that few, if any other quarterbacks, can throw. But you saw it in camp this year and you saw it during the season: His consistency isn't what it once was. I realize they're different sports, but athletes pretty much age the same in all of them. Favre is like an aging Jack Nicklaus. At the end, Nicklaus could still shoot a sparkling round in a major tournament; even win one every so many years. But the consistency wasn't there. That's where I think Favre is at. And, as a quarterback, you don't win a Super Bowl -- over a 16-game season; then three or four playoff games -- without consistency unless you're surrounded by other exceptional players. And that's not the case in Green Bay. The Packers don't have one exceptional player; nobody among the top 10, top 25 in the game; maybe even top 40 or 50. But one area where Moss would no doubt help is on the deep ball. Some of Favre's underthrows, maybe even overthrows, would turn into completions on jump balls or great catches. But I don't think the Favre-Moss combination could win a Super Bowl at this point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff Helminiak of Kenai - I heard an interesting quote from Mel Blount, taken from NFL Network's series on the greatest Super Bowl teams of all time: "Football is a physical game. Well, it used to be, anyway." It was in reference to the rule put in place in the late '70s to eliminate downfield contact with receivers. With that quote, they showed clips of Blount playing before the downfield rule and he was trashing receivers in a way not seen today. That got me thinking about the current complaints of many commentators that quarterbacks are too protected. Do you think the NFL will ride out the criticism of protecting quarterbacks because that criticism is a small price to pay for having Brady, Manning, Vick, etc., on the field as much as possible? Hasn't the NFL always opted on the side of a free-flowing passing game because it means more revenue?
A: Cliff Christl - Yes. I think they'll continue to protect the quarterbacks. If not for the Mannings, Bradys, Favres, Vicks, the networks wouldn't pay millions or billions for rights fees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Evan Argall of Chicago - Cliff, I was thinking of a theory I have about players aging. It seems to me that the absolute Physical Phenoms (those who are flat PHYSICALLY superior than others on the field) lose just as much off their peak ability as a good/average player, but since they have so much more room for error they are still often times standouts (tather than say a once great player who relied on savvy or instincts to build a great career). Examples: Favre (BALLISTIC Arm is still one of the best), Strahan (NATURAL size and strength are so great that he can lose 20 pounds in his mid 30's and still push lineman around), Lynch (though not fast, an absolute hammer with GREAT size), T.O (his ASTOUNDING size and speed make him practically unguardable). These guys may have lost a little due to age, but they were so physically superior to begin with that they are still absolute STANDOUTS. Your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - I agree. Great observation. It's hard to compare quarterbacks to wide receivers to defensive ends, but James Lofton might have been the rarest athlete I've observed in my years covering the Packers. He just looked and played like a thoroughbred. And look how long he lasted. On the other hand, Paul Coffman became a really good, self-made player. But he lost a step and he was done overnight. I wouldn't put Lynch in that great athlete category. But I'd put Favre in it and the others. Conditioning is part of it, too. And I think maybe that had something to do with Reggie White losing it quickly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tim Gantenbein of Winona - Randy Moss? A Packer? Brett Favre said what? What the hell is goin on out there?
A: Cliff Christl - Related to Milt?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Thomas R Beverly of Atsugi Japan - Good Morning from the "Land of the Rising Sun". In your opinion, what positional "NEED" can be filled out of this years free agent crop, if any?
A: Cliff Christl - There'll be good players at every position. Someone like Drew Bennett, for example, could help the Packers. But free agency might tip the scales for a team such as San Diego or Baltimore or New England; teams that are missing just one or two small links. It's not going to be a cure-all for the Packers, or even help much. That's why Ted Thompson is committed to the draft.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Michael Young of Jersey - Why are people suddenly demanding that the Packers bring in playmakers in hopes of Favre getting one last run at the Super Bowl. It seems that this demand is a little too little and a little too late. As your fine article pointed out the Packers never really gave him much to work with through out his career. Had the Packers brought in better offensive talent over the last 15 years they arguably would have been multiple Super Bowl winners.
A: Cliff Christl - Or some stud defenders after White and Butler left. But those players aren't easily found.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Owen of Grand Rapids - You've convincingly argued many times that it's the star players that are the difference between Super Bowl teams and also rans. My question is in relationship to last years draft. Would the Packers have been better off trading their #1 and 2 number choices to move up three spots in the draft and get Reggie Bush. In other words, would a team be better off with Hawk, Jennings, and Colledge or with Reggie Bush and three average street free agents playing LB, WR, and OL?
A: Cliff Christl - Great question. Clearly, they would be better off with Bush if he pans out and it appears that he will. And NFL people agree. In the point value system that they use to trade picks, the No. 1 overall choice in the draft is worth 3,000 points. The No. 2 choice, which Bush was, is worth 2,600 points. The fifth pick is worth 1,700 points. And the 47th pick, which was the Packers' second-round choice last year and the one they used to take Colledge, is worth 430 points. So the Saints wouldn't have made that trade. Their pick was worth 2,600 points; they'd have been getting 2,130 in return. Now, if the Packers had thrown in their other second-round pick, the 52nd, the one they used to take Jennings, it was worth 380 points. Now, we're up to 2,510. Throw in a fourth-round pick and you'd be close to 2,600. So that would have been the price for Bush: The fifth pick overall, two seconds and a fourth. But I'd still make the trade because Bush could be a superstar and superstars win Super Bowls. I know some people still argue with me about what they call "my playmaker" theory. It's not my theory. It's what everybody in the NFL believes in. That's why they put so much value on the first and second picks in the draft. That's where you typically draft your superstars. This year, the Packers' 16th pick is worth 1,000 points. I'm guessing maybe all their picks combined don't add up to the 3,000, it would take to get the No. 1 pick or even the 2,200 that it would take to get the third pick.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John of Columbia City - Cliff, Peter King noted in his Tuesday column that Favre had more drop backs than any QB in the league this past year and only 21 sacks. He said that indicated Favre can still move well in the pocket. He also noted that Favre had the 7th most passing yards of his career while throwing to Driver and a cast of nobodies. He argued that Favre had a good year considering those things. Based on your article last week you seem to think Favre has fallen quite a distance from the top QBs in the game but don't you think his mobility, experience and arm strength could still put him near the top if he had a couple more reliable weapons? Especially if the OL keeps getting better and he doesn't hit the wall at 38?
A: Cliff Christl - I think more than anything that sack total reflects Favre's ability to read a defense and get rid of the ball quickly. In that regard, he's much like Manning, who has less mobility, even today. As I wrote, Favre remains a good quarterback. Good quarterbacks need a great back or a great defense or something equivalent to win a Super Bowl.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: David Jones of Los angeles - How do you think Winston Moss' new position will affect his relationship with Bob Sanders, who now will be both a subordinate and a superior? Thank you.
A: Cliff Christl - Good way to put it. My impression is that neither one has a big ego. That should help the situation. But you never know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: BZ in BA of Buenos Aires, Argentina - Cliff, you have said repeatedly that it takes special players for teams to make it to the Super Bowl, and have given a lot of examples to support this. I tend to agree with you on this one, given the fact that talent in general is fairly well distributed throughout the league, and there are no real "secrets". I particularly liked your example of how Belicheck became a winner when Brady appeared, and if he hadn't, then it is quite unlikely that the Patriots would have been such a powerhouse over the last few years. I also think the same thing is true in other sports, particularly basketball - just imagine the Lakers without Magic, the Celtics without Bird, or the Bulls without Jordan - none of them would have been anything special. Anyway, my question is: who were the special people when Tampa Bay won it all? I have a hard time considering Warren Sapp as being that special. John Lynch is great, but is he really a difference maker? Brad Johnson was ordinary at best. Running Backs? WRs? I guess Keyshawn maybe, although I have always considered him to be overrated. TE? I don't remember. Your opinion? Thanks. And thanks for the chats. BZ.
A: Cliff Christl - I think you get it and it's a great question. The Bucs won with defense. As I wrote in a weblog, they were one of I think five or six teams to hold opponents under 200 points in a season and all won Super Bowls except for the two that lost in the same years that one of the other teams won. I think what you had with the Bucs was three, maybe even four, near great players: Derrick Brooks, Sapp, Simeon Rice and maybe Lynch. Brooks and Sapp will be Hall of Famers. They're not Lawrence Taylor and Reggie White, but they were special and probably a notch above say a LeRoy Butler. I'm not sure Rice is a Hall of Famer, but for a period of time he played at that level. He was as good a pass rusher as there was in the game. My guess is that Lynch may make the Hall as well. But I'm not sold on the fact that he's a Hall of Famer: Just a very good player. But that's three really special players and another very good one. Plus, they had some other good players on that defense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Adam of Columbia - Hey Cliff I just read the article reviewing the stats for the Pack this season. It said that the Packers threw the ball way more than the next closest team. Wasn't MM's philosophy run first? I didn't think that they were behind in so many of the games where they needed to pass to catch up. Where I live, I only got to see about 3 or 4 of the games, so I don't know much about the play selections. Any suggestions why they passed so much?
A: Cliff Christl - I think it was largely because they couldn't run the ball against good run defenses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bob of stockbridge Wi - Cliff do you think Jevon Walkers rookie season was better than Greg Jennings? What spot in first round was Eddie Lee Ivory taken?I always thought with a better work ethic and two good knees he would of had an outstanding career. Joel Bushbaums 89 scouts notebook he rated Tony Mandarich higher than Aikman,Dion Sanders, Andre Rison, Barry Sanders?
A: Cliff Christl - Jennings had better numbers. But it was obvious that Walker was more talented and just needed time to develop. Ivery could have been an outstanding back and he was drafted 15th. There was nothing wrong with his work ethic, either. He was a smart, good player. He had a drug problem that hurt his career; but, as I remember, that came after the knee injuries had derailed it. You're right, there are no sure things in the draft. It's possible the No. 1 pick could be a bust and that some day another sixth-round pick will be a Hall of Famer. But the fact is that you have a 33% chance of landing a Pro Bowl player at No. 16 and a less than 1% chance of drafting a Hall of Famer. With the No. 1 pick, you have about a 60% chance of drafting a Pro Bowl player and upwards of a 20% chance of drafting a Hall of Famer. So, again, there's nothing wrong with pipedreams. But there's a reason in the NFL point value system why the first pick is worth 3,000 points; the 16th pick, 1,000 points; and the 32nd, or last pick of the first round, 590 points. By the way, the 199th pick, where Brady was drafted, is worth 11.8 points. Then again, when Brady goes in the Hall of Fame, he may be the first sixth round pick to make it. So far, there haven'tbeen any.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ryan Schneider of Lexington KY - Could we get Randy Moss? What about ken Hamlin or nate clements both are young and both are playmakers. Why hasnt harris been reworked? I think that is an injustice..we dont need bad will right now. Also who do we draft? thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - Lots of questions, there. Clements may be one of the better free agents, but I don't think the Packers will pay big money for a corner again this year. It'll be a high draft priority, on the other hand. I wouldn't call Hamlin a playmaker. Actually, I wouldn't call Clements one, either. They're good players; not great. Not sure about Harris. But there's no rush.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Scott of Suamico - With regards to the theory that you need 3 difference makers/playmakers on a team to be a super bowl contender, or 2 of them if one is a quarterback, does Brett Favre still count as one? If so, the addition of Randy Moss could be the piece we need. I suspect, however, that you and NFL scouts no longer consider Favre in this category.
A: Cliff Christl - A number of teams have won with just one great player: the Colts this year, the Giants with Taylor, the Patriots with Brady, the Jets with Namath. Some teams have won with two or three: The Packers in '96, the Bucs, the Bears in '85, the 49ers with Montana, Rice, Lott. I don't think Favre qualifies as great any more and I'm not sure Moss does. His production suggests he doesn't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Yuri Zanow of New York, NY - Dear Cliff, The biggest historical challenge to what a lot of people call the "playmaker theory" has to be the Buffalo Bills. They had a Hall of Fame quarterback, running back, defensive end, and coach plus two outside linebackers and a center who will get consideration and Pro Bowlers at tight end, tackle, guard, inside linebacker, and safety, but they still lost in the Super Bowl to less talented teams. Do you have any insight into why that happened? My theory is that Marv Levy might not have been as good a coach as people give him credit for. I think the talent the Bills had was clearly superior to the Giants and the Redskins and not that far below the Cowboys.
A: Cliff Christl - First of all, I don't think any of their Hall of Famers were great players. Kelly wasn't a Favre or a Manning or an Elway or a Brady or even a Troy Aikman. Thurman Thomas wasn't a Walter Payton or even an Emmitt Smith. Lofton was on the down side. And I don't believe that Andre Reed is a Hall of Famer. I think Buchsbaum had him rated among the top 10 receivers only four times in 16 years and never higher than six. The Bills lost to the New York Giants. They had a better player in Lawrence Taylor, one of the greatest in the history of the game. They lost twice to Dallas, which had better players: Aikman over Kelly, Smith over Thomas, Irvin over Reed. The other loss was to Washington. Again, the Redskins are the one anomaly in all this. And I would agree that Gibbs was a better coach than Levy. That's it for today. Some great questions. Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - Kevin, you posted the first question. We'll start with you. If a player of Moss' caliber becomes available, I can't imagine that the Packers wouldn't explore the possibility of trading for him. But Moss' cap number next year will be at least $10 million. My understanding is that Chris Mortensen also reported that the Raiders were seeking a third-round pick and a wide receiver. The Packers have two receivers with market value: Donald Driver and Greg Jennings. So would you trade a third and Jennings or Driver for a player who could potentially be as much a cancer as Terrell Owens has been in Philadelphia and Dallas? Also, Moss didn't play well and quit last year in Oakland. I'm assuming his lack of production stemmed largely from the Raiders' pathetic quarterback play. But is Moss still a premier receiver? I'm guessing he is. But I don't think the addition of Randy Moss is going to turn the Packers into a Super Bowl contender.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Doug Hauseman of Poughkeepsie - Cliff, I love your columns but don't have to agree with all of them. On your most recent piece you claim Favre could not have won a championship with the Colts when any QB in the NFL would have beat the Bears with the Colt's level of dominance on the line of scrimmage. I submit to you that Manning outside a dome, protected by rookie linemen, one average receiver and everyone else either staying in to block or running the wrong routes would not have won 8 games as Favre did. Your comparing apples and oranges with one player surrounded by championship players and the other surrounded by a team that might not have won 2 games without their veteran QB.
A: Cliff Christl - You're free to disagree with me. But how closely did you watch the game? How much do you know about the Colts' personnel? Their offensive line is average. Their two guards are run-of-the-mill at best. How many false start penalties did they have Sunday? Left tackle Tarik Glenn is a good pass blocker, but he's not a dominant player. Ryan Diem, the right tackle, got hurt and was replaced at the start of the second half. Center Jeff Saturday is a Pro Bowl player, but he's an overachiever. Again, he's not some stud lineman. So there's no way that group could dominate the Chicago Bears' defensive line or just about any defensive line if all things were even. But they weren't even. Because of Peyton Manning, the Bears are playing with their two safeties almost in the end zone seats. Basically, the Bears were playing with seven in the box. Plus, without going back over every play, it seemed to me that the Colts ran a fair number of times on passing downs when the Bears were in nickel. So, yes, the Colts dominated the line. And I admit here that I haven't watched the replay. But, no doubt, the Colts had eight blocking seven or seven blocking seven most of the time. On the flip side, the Colts' defense appeared to be playing run first with a safety cheating into the box. So they have eight defenders vs. seven blockers, whereas the Bears' front is outnumbered. Manning is who creates that mismatch. I remember talking to Jeff Jagodzinski after the Miami game this year and I remarked that even after the Packers made their adjustment to give Daryn Colledge help against Jason Taylor that there were also times when Colledge blocked Taylor one-on-one in the passing game. As Jagodzinski explained, those probably were in running situations where Miami's defensive call required that Taylor play run first. Under those circumstances, as Jagodzinski explained, even Colledge, a rookie playing his only game at left tackle, should be able to pass block Taylor, especially if the Packers ran a play-action fake. But put Colledge up against Taylor one-on-one on third-and-long and it was no contest. Peyton Manning is a much more accurate passer than Brett Favre, at this stage. It's not even close. And because of Manning's ability to throw the ball, it makes it easy for the Colts to run the ball with an average line and average backs. You might not want to admit it, but it all goes back to the quarterback.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Kenny Jay of Reno - Cliff, My question is this. Since Favre announced his return I hear former NFL players say, "it's great, Brett should keep playing as long as he can..." but I hear quite a few sports writers saying the complete opposite, that he should get out. Specifically who comes to mind is Rick Reily from ESPN. He stated that Favre should have gotten out years ago. What's up with the writers, why do they want Favre to get out. Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - Don't know. I can only speak for myself. It made no difference to me if Favre retired or played again. I figure it's his life and none of my business.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike of Milwaukee - Cliff - I am really starting to dislike the Super Bowl. The people that are more excited about the commercials than the game....the silly halftime shows....media day....the focus on parties rather than the game...too much style and too little substance. I'll even go as far as saying that the game should NOT be played at a neutral location. I understand it's all about money, but is the NFL alienating core fans by catering to much to the soccer moms who watch the Super Bowl but can't name two players? Is this a good long term strategy?
A: Cliff Christl - I agree with you. I think it's a turnoff. In fact, I don't understand why people don't Tivo -- is that how you spell it? we have it, but because I'm a technical dinosaur my wife has to set the recordings for me -- all games. If you watch them live, you're not watching football, you're watching commercials. But back to your question. For the biggest game of the year, the NFL essentially shuts out the average fan and says, 'We don't give two hoots about you,' and caters only to those with corporate jets, six and seven-figure salaries, and connections in high places.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Digger of Andover - Hi Cliff: You've often stated that Moss is a talent the Packers should covet. Do you still believe it? What would you give up for Moss right now if you were TT? Would Oakland take it?
A: Cliff Christl - I'd maybe considering giving up a third-round pick. Technically, Moss isn't a free agent. But the Colts were once again proof that you don't buy championships. You build through the draft. Jeff Saturday and Adam Vinatieri were free agent signings. But their other free agents were basically role players, subs and another borderline starter or two. I don't think trading for Moss will result in a Super Bowl victory for the Packers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: SCOTT SIELEMAN of OELWEIN IOWA - WHERE DID THIS CRAP RUMOR COME FROM SOME DANG RADIO TALK SHOW IN MINNESOTA PICKED UP BY OTHERS ONLINE !!!? COME ON WE DONT NEED THAT TRASH AND CANCER IN GREEN BAY!!! WE CAN WIN WITH WINNERS WE DONT NEED LOSERS TO WIN!!! COULD U SEE R. M. CONFRONT BRETT BECAUSE HE DID NOT GET A PASS THROWN TO HIM!? OR RUNNING DOWN A LOCAL POLICE OFFICER ! A GUY THAT ADMITS TO ONLY PLAYING ON CERTAIN PLAYS DOES NOT BELONG IN TITLETOWN USA!!! PACKERS RULE!
A: Cliff Christl - I'm sure you're not alone in thinking that way. And maybe the Packers will stay clear of Moss for those reasons. But my guess is they'll at least inquire and then weigh the negatives against his talent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bill of West Allis - Cliff, I saw where you mentioned Joel Buchsbaum recently. Did you know him well? What was he like behind all that draft/personnel analysis? He seemed to be a mysterious character.
A: Cliff Christl - Never met him personally. Don't know a lot of people who did. But I talked to him numerous times and he seemed like a good, decent person consumed by his work. Check out a story on Buchsbaum written by Juliet Macur of the Dallas Morning News. It should come up on a Google search. Here's what Bill Belichick said about Buchsbaum in that story: "There's a thousand people out there that write draft books, and they aren't worth the paper they're written on. But Joel? He was something special." That's why I put stock in Buchsbaum's ratings prior to his death and I dismiss all of today's so-called draft experts. As Belichick said, you're paying for something that isn't worth the paper that it's written on. And my suggestion would be: Remember that come draft day. Just because someone sells you a book for $25 or appears on TV doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. It just means there are a lot of suckers out there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: S. Jain of nashville, TN - What was the main argument that kept Paul Tagliabue out of the Hall of Fame? What is your overall opinion of the class that got in.
A: Cliff Christl - I thought it was a good class. I wasn't sold on Hickerson and he was the only finalist I didn't vote for. I felt that previous committees had set precedent in picking all-decade or all-era teams that Kramer and Kuechenberg were more deserving among guards from the '60s and '70s. But I also recognize that others thought Hickerson was better. So I accept the decision of the voters. My feeling is that Tagliabue deserves to be in the Hall. I voted for him in all the preliminary voting, but I didn't believe that it was necessary we induct him this year. And because there were some players that I felt strongly about; and two others Charlie Sanders, the other senior nominee, and Roger Wehlri, who was in his last year of eligibility as a modern-era player, who basically were getting their last chance before the committee; I didn't vote for Tagliabue this time. But I plan to in the future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: dan of milwaukee - what do u think about this roster off.brett,driver,jenning,jarret from usc,fergusen,and robinson or would u pick a running back first and pick Wide-receiver in the second round or defense in this draft also because im all for defense but its are offense that needs the help but i think we can pick up enough defense in free agency and pick offense in the draft because i see more potential then defense all we need is one or two receivers and a running back of the future and on defense one safety a third corner and we do have the 16th pick 30 million or so dollars my honest opinion we will go to the playoffs and more and brett is coming back now they have enough time to get him some playmakers mark my words 2007 we are going to the playoffs
A: Cliff Christl - As I wrote in my last column, there's nothing wrong with pipedreams. And, yes, if the Packers traded for Moss and he produced; drafted a great running back at 16th; and A.J. Hawk blossomed into a superstar next year, the Packers could be a force in the NFC playoffs and maybe have a shot at the Super Bowl. But that's not all going to happen. Oh, it could I suppose. But there's about as much chance of it happening as you or I winning the next $200 million Powerball.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Carl of Elk Mound - Cliff, what happened to Chris Havel at the GBPG?
A: Cliff Christl - He was fired.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Trevor of Kenora - Hi Cliff-thank you for the chats. I have the impression that Favre is coming back in large part because of the improvement the team showed late in the season. Do you think there's a carryover effect for a franchise, based on how a team finished in the latter weeks of the previous season? After all, Miami was picked by some people to be a sleeper for the Super Bowl based on their '05 finish. Then again, the Pack finished well in Sherman's first year and went on to have two really good regular seasons. Your thoughts? Thanks!
A: Cliff Christl - I think you see some carryover with young teams. I think there was carryover with the Packers as they climbed the ladder from 1992 to 1996. I think there was some recent carryover with Cincinnati until Carson Palmer got hurt and everything blew up on them at the end of last season. But I don't think there'll be any carryover for the current Packers because their best players are their oldest players. I think they fall into the same category as Miami last year, except that the Packers have a good quarterback and the Dolphins didn't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Chris of Madison - What do you make of AJ Hawk, a rookie, leading the team in tackles? He flashed at times during the season and definitely looked like he was improving throughout the year. Was it more because of the number of plays he was in, the scheme, or something else?
A: Cliff Christl - He's a very good football player. He'll be an anchor for the Packers for years to come if he stays healthy. But will he become a great player? That remains to be seen. I feel certain of this. He'll never be another Lawrence Taylor. What I mean by that is I don't see him being the star of a Super Bowl champ, the way Taylor was. But Hawk might be the star of a defense that wins a Super Bowl if the team also has a great quarterback.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff of Minneapolis - While I hate to belabor the Randy Moss speculation, it raises an interesting question. You stated in your post-Super Bowl column that the difference between Peyton Manning and Rex Grossman was a matter of inches: Manning threw right where he needed to throw to allow his receivers to make a play while Grossman was just enough off for the play to fail. You also mentioned in that column that Favre had slipped from the "Great Quarterback" status to "Good Quarterback" status because of diminishing ability to get the ball right where he needed to. So if indeed Thompson were able to obtain a playmaking receiver like Moss, how much would Favre's diminishing (but still good) skills affect his receiver's ability to make plays?
A: Cliff Christl - Consistency is the name of the game in the NFL. There probably isn't a quarterback in the league who couldn't make a great throw on a particular play. Manning's accuracy is amazing. Watching him in the playoffs, it seems that almost every pass he throws is a perfect pass. On the other hand, Grossman might throw perfect passes half the time on his good days or a third of the time on other days or even worse on his bad days. But if they were at the right time -- and he had that opportunity in the Super Bowl -- he could make plays to win games. That's the difference between Favre of 10 years ago and Favre of today. His completion percentage this year was the lowest of his career. Don't get me wrong, he still throws some great passes, some passes that few, if any other quarterbacks, can throw. But you saw it in camp this year and you saw it during the season: His consistency isn't what it once was. I realize they're different sports, but athletes pretty much age the same in all of them. Favre is like an aging Jack Nicklaus. At the end, Nicklaus could still shoot a sparkling round in a major tournament; even win one every so many years. But the consistency wasn't there. That's where I think Favre is at. And, as a quarterback, you don't win a Super Bowl -- over a 16-game season; then three or four playoff games -- without consistency unless you're surrounded by other exceptional players. And that's not the case in Green Bay. The Packers don't have one exceptional player; nobody among the top 10, top 25 in the game; maybe even top 40 or 50. But one area where Moss would no doubt help is on the deep ball. Some of Favre's underthrows, maybe even overthrows, would turn into completions on jump balls or great catches. But I don't think the Favre-Moss combination could win a Super Bowl at this point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff Helminiak of Kenai - I heard an interesting quote from Mel Blount, taken from NFL Network's series on the greatest Super Bowl teams of all time: "Football is a physical game. Well, it used to be, anyway." It was in reference to the rule put in place in the late '70s to eliminate downfield contact with receivers. With that quote, they showed clips of Blount playing before the downfield rule and he was trashing receivers in a way not seen today. That got me thinking about the current complaints of many commentators that quarterbacks are too protected. Do you think the NFL will ride out the criticism of protecting quarterbacks because that criticism is a small price to pay for having Brady, Manning, Vick, etc., on the field as much as possible? Hasn't the NFL always opted on the side of a free-flowing passing game because it means more revenue?
A: Cliff Christl - Yes. I think they'll continue to protect the quarterbacks. If not for the Mannings, Bradys, Favres, Vicks, the networks wouldn't pay millions or billions for rights fees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Evan Argall of Chicago - Cliff, I was thinking of a theory I have about players aging. It seems to me that the absolute Physical Phenoms (those who are flat PHYSICALLY superior than others on the field) lose just as much off their peak ability as a good/average player, but since they have so much more room for error they are still often times standouts (tather than say a once great player who relied on savvy or instincts to build a great career). Examples: Favre (BALLISTIC Arm is still one of the best), Strahan (NATURAL size and strength are so great that he can lose 20 pounds in his mid 30's and still push lineman around), Lynch (though not fast, an absolute hammer with GREAT size), T.O (his ASTOUNDING size and speed make him practically unguardable). These guys may have lost a little due to age, but they were so physically superior to begin with that they are still absolute STANDOUTS. Your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - I agree. Great observation. It's hard to compare quarterbacks to wide receivers to defensive ends, but James Lofton might have been the rarest athlete I've observed in my years covering the Packers. He just looked and played like a thoroughbred. And look how long he lasted. On the other hand, Paul Coffman became a really good, self-made player. But he lost a step and he was done overnight. I wouldn't put Lynch in that great athlete category. But I'd put Favre in it and the others. Conditioning is part of it, too. And I think maybe that had something to do with Reggie White losing it quickly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tim Gantenbein of Winona - Randy Moss? A Packer? Brett Favre said what? What the hell is goin on out there?
A: Cliff Christl - Related to Milt?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Thomas R Beverly of Atsugi Japan - Good Morning from the "Land of the Rising Sun". In your opinion, what positional "NEED" can be filled out of this years free agent crop, if any?
A: Cliff Christl - There'll be good players at every position. Someone like Drew Bennett, for example, could help the Packers. But free agency might tip the scales for a team such as San Diego or Baltimore or New England; teams that are missing just one or two small links. It's not going to be a cure-all for the Packers, or even help much. That's why Ted Thompson is committed to the draft.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Michael Young of Jersey - Why are people suddenly demanding that the Packers bring in playmakers in hopes of Favre getting one last run at the Super Bowl. It seems that this demand is a little too little and a little too late. As your fine article pointed out the Packers never really gave him much to work with through out his career. Had the Packers brought in better offensive talent over the last 15 years they arguably would have been multiple Super Bowl winners.
A: Cliff Christl - Or some stud defenders after White and Butler left. But those players aren't easily found.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Owen of Grand Rapids - You've convincingly argued many times that it's the star players that are the difference between Super Bowl teams and also rans. My question is in relationship to last years draft. Would the Packers have been better off trading their #1 and 2 number choices to move up three spots in the draft and get Reggie Bush. In other words, would a team be better off with Hawk, Jennings, and Colledge or with Reggie Bush and three average street free agents playing LB, WR, and OL?
A: Cliff Christl - Great question. Clearly, they would be better off with Bush if he pans out and it appears that he will. And NFL people agree. In the point value system that they use to trade picks, the No. 1 overall choice in the draft is worth 3,000 points. The No. 2 choice, which Bush was, is worth 2,600 points. The fifth pick is worth 1,700 points. And the 47th pick, which was the Packers' second-round choice last year and the one they used to take Colledge, is worth 430 points. So the Saints wouldn't have made that trade. Their pick was worth 2,600 points; they'd have been getting 2,130 in return. Now, if the Packers had thrown in their other second-round pick, the 52nd, the one they used to take Jennings, it was worth 380 points. Now, we're up to 2,510. Throw in a fourth-round pick and you'd be close to 2,600. So that would have been the price for Bush: The fifth pick overall, two seconds and a fourth. But I'd still make the trade because Bush could be a superstar and superstars win Super Bowls. I know some people still argue with me about what they call "my playmaker" theory. It's not my theory. It's what everybody in the NFL believes in. That's why they put so much value on the first and second picks in the draft. That's where you typically draft your superstars. This year, the Packers' 16th pick is worth 1,000 points. I'm guessing maybe all their picks combined don't add up to the 3,000, it would take to get the No. 1 pick or even the 2,200 that it would take to get the third pick.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John of Columbia City - Cliff, Peter King noted in his Tuesday column that Favre had more drop backs than any QB in the league this past year and only 21 sacks. He said that indicated Favre can still move well in the pocket. He also noted that Favre had the 7th most passing yards of his career while throwing to Driver and a cast of nobodies. He argued that Favre had a good year considering those things. Based on your article last week you seem to think Favre has fallen quite a distance from the top QBs in the game but don't you think his mobility, experience and arm strength could still put him near the top if he had a couple more reliable weapons? Especially if the OL keeps getting better and he doesn't hit the wall at 38?
A: Cliff Christl - I think more than anything that sack total reflects Favre's ability to read a defense and get rid of the ball quickly. In that regard, he's much like Manning, who has less mobility, even today. As I wrote, Favre remains a good quarterback. Good quarterbacks need a great back or a great defense or something equivalent to win a Super Bowl.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: David Jones of Los angeles - How do you think Winston Moss' new position will affect his relationship with Bob Sanders, who now will be both a subordinate and a superior? Thank you.
A: Cliff Christl - Good way to put it. My impression is that neither one has a big ego. That should help the situation. But you never know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: BZ in BA of Buenos Aires, Argentina - Cliff, you have said repeatedly that it takes special players for teams to make it to the Super Bowl, and have given a lot of examples to support this. I tend to agree with you on this one, given the fact that talent in general is fairly well distributed throughout the league, and there are no real "secrets". I particularly liked your example of how Belicheck became a winner when Brady appeared, and if he hadn't, then it is quite unlikely that the Patriots would have been such a powerhouse over the last few years. I also think the same thing is true in other sports, particularly basketball - just imagine the Lakers without Magic, the Celtics without Bird, or the Bulls without Jordan - none of them would have been anything special. Anyway, my question is: who were the special people when Tampa Bay won it all? I have a hard time considering Warren Sapp as being that special. John Lynch is great, but is he really a difference maker? Brad Johnson was ordinary at best. Running Backs? WRs? I guess Keyshawn maybe, although I have always considered him to be overrated. TE? I don't remember. Your opinion? Thanks. And thanks for the chats. BZ.
A: Cliff Christl - I think you get it and it's a great question. The Bucs won with defense. As I wrote in a weblog, they were one of I think five or six teams to hold opponents under 200 points in a season and all won Super Bowls except for the two that lost in the same years that one of the other teams won. I think what you had with the Bucs was three, maybe even four, near great players: Derrick Brooks, Sapp, Simeon Rice and maybe Lynch. Brooks and Sapp will be Hall of Famers. They're not Lawrence Taylor and Reggie White, but they were special and probably a notch above say a LeRoy Butler. I'm not sure Rice is a Hall of Famer, but for a period of time he played at that level. He was as good a pass rusher as there was in the game. My guess is that Lynch may make the Hall as well. But I'm not sold on the fact that he's a Hall of Famer: Just a very good player. But that's three really special players and another very good one. Plus, they had some other good players on that defense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Adam of Columbia - Hey Cliff I just read the article reviewing the stats for the Pack this season. It said that the Packers threw the ball way more than the next closest team. Wasn't MM's philosophy run first? I didn't think that they were behind in so many of the games where they needed to pass to catch up. Where I live, I only got to see about 3 or 4 of the games, so I don't know much about the play selections. Any suggestions why they passed so much?
A: Cliff Christl - I think it was largely because they couldn't run the ball against good run defenses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bob of stockbridge Wi - Cliff do you think Jevon Walkers rookie season was better than Greg Jennings? What spot in first round was Eddie Lee Ivory taken?I always thought with a better work ethic and two good knees he would of had an outstanding career. Joel Bushbaums 89 scouts notebook he rated Tony Mandarich higher than Aikman,Dion Sanders, Andre Rison, Barry Sanders?
A: Cliff Christl - Jennings had better numbers. But it was obvious that Walker was more talented and just needed time to develop. Ivery could have been an outstanding back and he was drafted 15th. There was nothing wrong with his work ethic, either. He was a smart, good player. He had a drug problem that hurt his career; but, as I remember, that came after the knee injuries had derailed it. You're right, there are no sure things in the draft. It's possible the No. 1 pick could be a bust and that some day another sixth-round pick will be a Hall of Famer. But the fact is that you have a 33% chance of landing a Pro Bowl player at No. 16 and a less than 1% chance of drafting a Hall of Famer. With the No. 1 pick, you have about a 60% chance of drafting a Pro Bowl player and upwards of a 20% chance of drafting a Hall of Famer. So, again, there's nothing wrong with pipedreams. But there's a reason in the NFL point value system why the first pick is worth 3,000 points; the 16th pick, 1,000 points; and the 32nd, or last pick of the first round, 590 points. By the way, the 199th pick, where Brady was drafted, is worth 11.8 points. Then again, when Brady goes in the Hall of Fame, he may be the first sixth round pick to make it. So far, there haven'tbeen any.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ryan Schneider of Lexington KY - Could we get Randy Moss? What about ken Hamlin or nate clements both are young and both are playmakers. Why hasnt harris been reworked? I think that is an injustice..we dont need bad will right now. Also who do we draft? thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - Lots of questions, there. Clements may be one of the better free agents, but I don't think the Packers will pay big money for a corner again this year. It'll be a high draft priority, on the other hand. I wouldn't call Hamlin a playmaker. Actually, I wouldn't call Clements one, either. They're good players; not great. Not sure about Harris. But there's no rush.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Scott of Suamico - With regards to the theory that you need 3 difference makers/playmakers on a team to be a super bowl contender, or 2 of them if one is a quarterback, does Brett Favre still count as one? If so, the addition of Randy Moss could be the piece we need. I suspect, however, that you and NFL scouts no longer consider Favre in this category.
A: Cliff Christl - A number of teams have won with just one great player: the Colts this year, the Giants with Taylor, the Patriots with Brady, the Jets with Namath. Some teams have won with two or three: The Packers in '96, the Bucs, the Bears in '85, the 49ers with Montana, Rice, Lott. I don't think Favre qualifies as great any more and I'm not sure Moss does. His production suggests he doesn't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Yuri Zanow of New York, NY - Dear Cliff, The biggest historical challenge to what a lot of people call the "playmaker theory" has to be the Buffalo Bills. They had a Hall of Fame quarterback, running back, defensive end, and coach plus two outside linebackers and a center who will get consideration and Pro Bowlers at tight end, tackle, guard, inside linebacker, and safety, but they still lost in the Super Bowl to less talented teams. Do you have any insight into why that happened? My theory is that Marv Levy might not have been as good a coach as people give him credit for. I think the talent the Bills had was clearly superior to the Giants and the Redskins and not that far below the Cowboys.
A: Cliff Christl - First of all, I don't think any of their Hall of Famers were great players. Kelly wasn't a Favre or a Manning or an Elway or a Brady or even a Troy Aikman. Thurman Thomas wasn't a Walter Payton or even an Emmitt Smith. Lofton was on the down side. And I don't believe that Andre Reed is a Hall of Famer. I think Buchsbaum had him rated among the top 10 receivers only four times in 16 years and never higher than six. The Bills lost to the New York Giants. They had a better player in Lawrence Taylor, one of the greatest in the history of the game. They lost twice to Dallas, which had better players: Aikman over Kelly, Smith over Thomas, Irvin over Reed. The other loss was to Washington. Again, the Redskins are the one anomaly in all this. And I would agree that Gibbs was a better coach than Levy. That's it for today. Some great questions. Thanks.