Bretsky
03-02-2007, 12:18 AM
With free agency and the NFL draft just around the corner, Cliff Christl is back from vacation and back online to chat with Insiders.
Q: Digger of Andover - Hi Cliff: According to JS reports, Koren Robinson is as sober as a judge these days. Maybe he's cleaning up his act just to spite you. However, even IF he continues on the righteous path, he wouldn't be eligible for reinstatement until mid- September. [Is that correct?] If so, is there any chance he'd be able to contribute at all at that point with no camp? Maybe its analogous to a holdout. Will TT get the last laugh on CC?
A: Cliff Christl - Digger, you posted first, we'll start with you. First, let's see if he's still sober and eligible in September. He tinkled away $12 million in Minnesota because he couldn't stay sober. Now, at least, unlike when the Packers foolishly signed him, Robinson has undergone treatment. Consequently, I'm assuming that he at least has a chance to overcome his addiction. Again, it was stupid for Ted Thompson to sign him when he did. If Thompson had waited until now to do it, it might have made some sense. I stand by my column of last September. I'd write it again. But I wouldn't necessarily write it today. Robinson is six months removed from his last incident; not less than a month. No doubt, he has seen doctors, counselors, etc., who maybe have made progress with him. And he has been away from football, an environment that he hasn't dealt with very well in the past. That said, Koren Robinson has been a disappointment as an NFL receiver. In six years, he has caught more than 40 passes twice. I think there's a much better chance of Robinson continuing to be a tease for teams and also fans like you than a playmaker.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Marlowe of LA - Cliff, why are you such a hard-boiled fella?
A: Cliff Christl - So I'm not competing with you or others for the Mr. Personality or Miss Congeniality awards. I'm not sure my immediate family would agree with you, either. But even so, if I'm blunt speaking, hard-edged or hard-boiled and highly competitive, I won't offer any apologies for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Terry Huebner of Hinsdale, IL - I read somewhere recently that Mike Sherman was widely known to be very thin-skinned and read everything written about himself and took negative things personally. He also allegedly only got along with one of the beat writers that followed the team. Did you find that to be your experience? And if you know, who was the favorite writer? Also, where do you stand on resigning or keeping guys such as Green, KGB, Ferguson, Franks and Martin?
A: Cliff Christl - I haven't known too many head coaches who weren't sensitive to criticism and didn't confront the media about criticism directed at them. That goes with the territory. I don't know which writer it would be. I felt I had a typical civil, professional, but sometimes adversarial relationship with him. I can't speak for others. Also, it doesn't matter whether a head coach gets along with writers or not. Who cares? Personally, I thought Sherman was more self-righteous than overly sensitive. I think KGB is worth bringing back as a pass rush specialist. Green is worth brining back if he'll agree to an incentive laden contract and forego the big up-front money. Franks and Martin might be worth bringing back because they don't have anybody else. Maybe the same goes for Ferguson, although he's a run-of-the-mill player and will never be anything more than that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Al of Stamford, CT - I remember back in 2003, when the Packers traded the 62nd pick in the draft for Al Harris, you somewhat opposed the trade, because Al Harris was in his late 20's at the time and had limited upside. I would consider Al Harris a Pro Bowl caliber player even though he hasn't made one yet. Statistically speaking, what are the chances of landing a Pro Bowl type player at #62 in the draft? Sure, Al Harris is older and maybe only has 1 or 2 good years left in him, but he has been a solid shut-down CB for the past 2 or 3 years. He's not a game-changer, but I'm sure that most teams that play a man-to-man cover scheme would take Al Harris as their starting CB any day. Now do you think his performance has justified the trade or would you still rather keep the pick?
A: Cliff Christl - The odds of getting a player better than Harris with the 62nd pick probably were slim. In fact, a quick glance of my research shows that only one player drafted 62nd has become a Pro Bowl player and that was wide receiver Tony Hill of Dallas, chosen in 1977. Then again, Harris isn't a Pro Bowl player, either. You might think he is, but I'm also sure there have been a lot of other good players taken at No. 62, as well. Anyway, what have the Packers accomplished with Harris? Around the time the Eagles traded Harris, they drafted Sheldon Brown, 59th, and Lito Sheppard, 26th, and they've had a better defense and a better cornerback situation; and best of all, for the Eagles, Brown and Sheppard are 26, 27 years old. They have a future. The Bears' two corners are second- and fourth-round picks and young. The Patriots drafted Asante Samuel in the fourth round. So I'd take my chances on a draft pick, recognizing that the odds would be less than 50-50 -- probably even less than one in three -- of getting a better player than Harris. But that's how you build championship teams: By occasionally striking it rich on a player such as Samuel. What have the Packers won with Harris? Sure, they'd be in trouble without him. But they aren't going to win a Super Bowl with him, either. And that is the only objective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mad Dog of East Texas - Cliff- My question concerns your blog on Jenkins but first of all I am still in the camp that that says Mike Sherman does not have it in his mental makeup to ever win the Super Bowl. Until this year Dungy was a coach who is easily one of the class acts in all of sports or anything else, but with the team he has had in Indy and the a couple of the teams he had in Tampa, he did come up way short to many times and he was one extremely bad pass interference call from being upset with by a less talented team in New England at home again this year. But Dungy did win it all and there is nothing else to offer on that. But in all the playoff games he lost and it was more than a few, he had vastly superior teams and lost when he had no business losing. The loss to the Steelers was inexcusable with his loaded team. As far as Sherman goes, when he went out to Philly after having practiced and installed a defensive game plan only to change the entire game plan AFTER the last team meeting and informed the team the day of the game spoke volumes. He appears to lack an inner conviction. I am guessing Lombardi never had a midnight handwringing episode where he changed the entire game plan hours before the game, and what's more Holmgren wasn't that type either. And of course you can say how could I possibly be in a position to know this or offer an intelligent opinion on this as I don't have day to day access, I can only go by what I see. But as far as the defensive game plan being changed in the Philly game like it was, there are a number of Packers that are from East Texas and one of them lives here and I personally asked him if that happened because it was BARELY reported on by the reporters who do have access and that hugely important lack of leadership decision out of Sherman was deep sixed by the reporting world. So when I heard that and then confirmed in in person, I was positive the Sherman doesn't have the gravel in his gut to go the distance. So I am still in that camp and am staying there and if your observation was why don't the people who had that opinion stay with it, I am, but my question is why did 99.9% of the media let the nervous nanny decision made by Sherman get such a free pass. That incident told me everything I needed to know and that is Sherman needed to be somewhere else but coaching my team. If I was able to confirm the story, without access, why couldn't the pro's who cover get that one out. I mean good night, how do you let that one go by. Mike Sherman will NEVER EVER win a championship under any circumstance. I'll retract it if he ever does. My question on Jenkins is you said he was given a big contract based on four games, but Jenkins has looked like a pretty decent player since he got here. Do you think Thompson gave him the money based on four games, or do you think he looked at every single play Jenkins made while in Green Bay. I think sometimes if a player comes out of nowhere and doesn't have the pedigree up front, that player is judged on that rather than what he does. I know you have reported good things on Kampman, but I get the impression you don't consider him an elite player and I probably never will, but the reality is he can line up with the best of them, even though he wasn't a star first round pick. Johnny Unitas wasn't either, nor Tom Brady. I'm thinking Jenkins is pretty good and probably actually is worth the contract. Would the Packers have been better off letting him go rather than pay that money. Thomspon seems to know talent, and hardly seems the type to overpay for anything. I mean the guy probably clips coupons for paper towels around the house.
A: Cliff Christl - Boy, it's amazing how much insight some people gain sitting on a bar stool or talking in a barber shop or merely watching football on TV in East Texas. I guess that can make you an authority on every coach in the NFL; how the media operates, you name it. No wonder you need to wear 10-gallon hats down there. Or do they not fit? As for Jenkins, I think he was worth signing. I wrote that the risk was minimal because of his work ethic. The point I made was that he wouldn't have gotten that kind of money if he hadn't played as well as he did the last month of the season. He still would have gotten a nice contract, but not $6 million plus guaranteed. You're misrepresenting what I wrote. Again, I don't know if you have a comprehension problem, like to exaggerate or what, but you seem to have trouble accurately reflecting what others have written or said. So how exaggerated is your Sherman story? As for Dungy, he had no playmakers on offense in Tampa and serious shortcomings on defense in Indy. I don't think he underachieved. But if you do, I give you credit for standing by your convictions. As for Kampman, I think I wrote long before many others that he was a very good player, the kind of core player that every champion needs. But, no, he isn't Jason Taylor or Julius Peppers. He isn't somebody opposing teams are going to design their game plans around. He's not Reggie White. Look at the tackles he played against this year and how many times he faced a backup or somebody on the bubble of being benched. Kampman is the epitome of a professional and was a deserving Pro Bowl pick this year, but if he's your best defensive player, you're not likely to win a Super Bowl unless you have a great quarterback and a great offense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jon Erkkila of Apple Valley, MN - Cliff, As for acquiring Randy Moss...his strength is going deep. Favre's strengths have never centered around throwing the deep ball. Certainly Moss may open things up underneath, but is that worth it with all his baggage plus the dollars??
A: Cliff Christl - Your point about the deep ball is well taken, but that's Moss' game and what he'd do is make plays on underthrown, maybe even overthrown balls, by outjumping and outrunning defenders. I think he's worth exploring. I wouldn't pay too much in terms of draft picks or players because I don't think he's going to turn the Packers into a Super Bowl contender. You certainly don't give up a No. 1 or a No. 2, maybe even a No. 3, for a player who might help you get to a wild card game.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: gene of chicago - Thanks for taking my question, Cliff. I know how skeptical you are about some of this stuff, but John Czarnecki on Fox Sports Website reported that Marshawn Lynch had a lackluster combine and was sliding at this point. Given the previous level of buzz about Lynch, do you agree?
A: Cliff Christl - John Czarnecki is a good reporter. He's a credible source. I wasn't at the combine, but I'd trust what he wrote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: James of Sacramento - Cliff, if the Pack were to add another pass rusher to the lineup, would KGB have much trade value given his "palatable" salary at an impact position? 2nd or 3rd round pick perhaps? And who do you see available on the free agent market who is better than what we have right now? Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - I don't think KGB would have much trade value at age 30 -- that's what he'll be next season -- and with his contract. He has value to the Packers, but probably not to any other team at that price. I think Adalius Thomas probably is the best player available in free agency, but I doubt if the Packers will make a pitch for him. I could see them making a run at a veteran receiver, maybe a Drew Bennett or Kevin Curtis. Perhaps Stallworth, although his lack of durability is scary. The best free agents were franchised. There isn't anybody that's going to turn a team around. If you're a team on the verge of winning a Super Bowl, you might be able to add a player or two to get you over the hump. I don't think the Packers are in that situation. So I don't see them making a big splash in free agency. It doesn't make sense at this point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Kevin of Chicago - Cliff, I know that you haven't been back from vacation very long, what do you think about an Aaron Rodgers for Randy Moss trade? Might there be anything to this rumor?
A: Cliff Christl - You're right, I haven't thought about it. On the surface, I don't think I'd give up on Rodgers without giving him a chance to play first. I haven't been overly impressed with him. The Packers certainly aren't champing at the bit to play him or they wouldn't be so eager to get Favre back. But until Rodgers plays, you can't write him off. There is ability there. It doesn't wow you. But he's not Rich Campbell, where after one look, a coach could conclude that he can't play. So, again, at first thought, it doesn't make sense to me to trade a young quarterback that you've invested two years in for a 30-year old receiver with a checkered past. I can't imagine the Packers doing that. It sounds to me like a subject that's just babble for talk radio or a chat like this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tom of Stillwater, MN - Cliff. You can label me a pimp, or worse, but I'd suit up that guy with the horns and a tail if I thought he could help the Packers. If you can get Randy Moss for a second round pick you do that deal every day, and twice on Sundays (four times on football Sundays). Why not?
A: Cliff Christl - Taking that position doesn't make you an agent of lascivious behavior -- how's that for a more politically correct way of repeating what you wrote? -- but I don't think Moss is worth a second-round pick. I would bet my bottom dollar that Randy Moss wouldn't win a Super Bowl for the Packers at this stage of his career and, more importantly, Favre's career. If the Packers had drafted Moss, they might have won another Super Bowl or two. But that opportunity has passed. What about giving up a third? That's worth thinking about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: SCOTT SIELEMAN of oelwein, iowa - who is crazy enough to want a dirty rottin cheatin parking ticket female officer assulter, no catch over the middle and only play when he wants to on the 12 time world champions ! ! green bay packers? not me
A: Cliff Christl - I know some fans think that way. I'd argue that the Packers aren't the Boy Scouts. If they can get Moss for cheap, why not? My objection with the Packers' decision to sign Koren Robinson wasn't that he was a bad guy; it was the risks that he represented at that time. The risks so outweighed the possible rewards that it was a dumb decision. If the Packers could get Moss for, say, a fourth-round pick and a reduced cap number -- that wouldn't be a dumb decision.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Josh of Madison - Heya Cliff, thanks for taking my question! Well, I just watched SportsCenter and have read fairly recent reports about the possible Raiders-Packers Moss trade. The latest is, Aaron Rodgers for Moss straight up. Think that's a good deal? Also, SC mentioned Moss isn't dynamic, that he isn't a great route runner, only good for stretching the field vertically. I think this is what the Packers need since Driver and Jennings seem to make their money in the middle of the field. How do you feel about that? Do you think Moss would be a good fit for the Packers in that respect? Thanks for your time.
A: Cliff Christl - I can't believe that Moss has just lost it. I realize he's 30 years old and on the downside, but he played on a team that had no quarterback. Aaron Brooks and Andrew Walter could turn Jerry Rice into Ollie Smith. So, yes, I think Moss would give the Packers a vertical threat that they don't have now and be a good complement to Driver and Jennings. I think he'd improve the Packers' chances of making the playoffs next year. But I don't think he'll have any more Super Bowl rings than he does now come next spring.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: daniel of milwaukee - you still think the packers wont go to the playoffs if they get moss. i think that will be the best offense in the nfl brett,driver,jennings moss robinson,when he comes back,and marshawn lynch if he's still on the board and i still think they should go after daniel graham and if our offence clicks our defense would be one of the best they were just on the field to long last year but u have to admit with all those rookies we still played one hell of a year i think in about 2 years we will be a great team what do u think
A: Cliff Christl - I think if a worm had hips, yadda, yadda, yadda. You know the rest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ann of Amherst, NH - Hi, Cliff! I hope your vacation was good time off. It's nice for us to have you back! Peyton Manning has his ring and, assuming his career continues w/out serious injury, he is on track to pass all the Marino records, including the ones that Favre will probably take over this next year. Favre has been known for his tough guy persona and his ability to improvise; Manning is known for his meticulous planning (and until this past year, was almost incapable of improvising -- if things didn't go as planned, his frustration was obvious). So, is there any thought that Favre may actually have underachieved in his career -- that if he had added offseason practices w/ his receivers, and more film study and self-improvement goals, he might have been even greater? Favre gets away from football in the offseason, Manning seems to work almost as hard. I have loved watching Favre, but w/ all the talk about Manning's preparation (and Brady's work ethic), I have at times wondered . . . or would all that planning have detracted from his "roughrider" style of play? Thanks again for all of YOUR offseason study and prep.
A: Cliff Christl - Good question. But I think it's like chocolate and vanilla. Take your pick. Favre's game was making something happen out of nothing; Manning's game is typical of the NFL's great dropback quarterbacks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Don of Dallas - If the idea at the combine is to simulate how players will perform in game conditions why don't they test players in full gear verses in shorts? Seems like the ability to move and play with the weight and bulk would change the dynamics.
A: Cliff Christl - I doubt if the agents would allow it. Plus, they've always tested players in shorts and T-shirts. So the standards have been set.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Michael Young of Jersey - Do the Packers owe anything to Favre?
A: Cliff Christl - His salary if he makes the team. I'm not trying to be a smart aleck. I think they should retire his number after he's done playing. But while he's playing, they don't owe him anything. If he comes to camp and it's obvious he can't play anymore, they should at least give him the opportunity to retire. But if he says no, they'd have no choice but to cut him. That's not going to happen, but that's how you have to do business in the NFL. There are 32 teams in the league. At the end of each year, one has succeeded and, for the most part, the other 31 have failed. There's no room for sentiment. Look back at the history of Super Bowl winners who held on to their aging stars too long.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Frank Miller of Cudahy WI - Cliff: With the combine going on all we hear about are 40 times. How much attention do teams pay to the 40? Do they use it just to compare players in the same drafts? The way they time it looks pretty subjective and I have yet to see anyone running down the field in shorts on a Sunday
A: Cliff Christl - True, but it's a game of speed. Not many players can play, at least at the offensive skill positions and at all the defensive positions, if they can't run. So teams need to verify that quality in a player.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Vince Cuilla of Millersville - Cliff, your recent article about the Packers finding elite players really brought back some memories. While no one can truly say what might have been, how about gazing into your Christl ball and giving us your take on the shifting NFL balance of power, if Starr had selected Montana and Lott? Thanks, Vince
A: Cliff Christl - Good question. The 49ers won three Super Bowls thanks to Montana, Lott and Jerry Rice. Their other players were no better than what the Packers had. Fred Dean was special, but probably not any more gifted than Ezra Johnson. Go look at the linemen, the linebackers and the rest of those 49ers' rosters. So put Montana and Lott in the same lineup with James Lofton, who was faster and more explosive than Rice, and the Packers might have 15 championships to their credit instead of 12.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Steven Wells of Nashville, Tn - Hi Cliff. In your opinion should GB draft a RB, WR, or S with the first round pick? Landry sure looks like a stud from the combine workouts. I would love to see him wearing the green and gold this fall and safety sure needs upgrading. Many thanks for your reply.
A: Cliff Christl - If Landry is available, I'm guessing he'd get serious consideration from the Packers. Again, I don't think the position matters as much as getting a player with a big upside.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Trevor of Kenora - Hi Cliff-thanks for the chats, and welcome back. Regarding the playmaker theory and the value of high draft picks, are there certain positions that teams should emphasize more when they're drafting very high in the first round? In other words, would a team like Detroit be better off drafting a tackle like Joe Thomas or a receiver like Calvin Johnson? Can tackles and safeties be considered as playmakers, or are teams better off focusing on the so-called skill positions when they have a high pick, even if a tackle is rated more highly on their draft board? Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - There was a day when personnel people subscribed to the theory that you take a good big man over a good small man every time. I think that was part of Tom Braatz's thinking when he drafted Mandarich over Barry Sanders. Braatz was old school. But I think that pick debunked that theory and now I think most teams would go playmaker first. Look at the salaries and cap numbers around the league and you'll be able to determine the priority positions. No. 1, it's quarterback. Then, it's big-play receivers, running backs and left tackles on offense. On defense, it's pass rushers and corners and maybe those few rare, every-down linebackers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John Dickmann of Bremerton, WA - Cliff, since you must have some knowledge of past Bears ownership and their tendencies, what's the deal with the cheap way they are treating Lovie Smith. (and for that matter Ron Rivera) Is they're apparent refusal to pay the going wage of a now experienced NFL coach a hold back do days of frugal George Halas? I can only assume Virginia McCaskey & family "live" off the Bears franchise and it's profits. The way this does affect the Packers org is that if the Bears are not willing to lock up Smith to a deal soon, don't you think it's quite possible he would coach out the remainder of his contract and move on to another org? Are they really that foolish to lose a good coach after they finally found one?
A: Cliff Christl - The two sides were posturing in negotiations. No big deal. After all the bartering, they've come to an agreement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Rudy of Kaukauna - Is Randy Moss just another Ruvel Martin at this stage of his career? If he's lost a step then he's just a big body that can't separate from DB's. If the Packers can get him for a third round pick and not have to assume a lot of guaranteed money then he's certainly worth a look, if not I'd pass on him.
A: Cliff Christl - Randy Moss probably could still lap Ruvell Martin in a 40.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: steveplotkin of Henderson, NV - It would have been nice to be sitting in the 10th slot in the draft instead of the 16th. I would have never thought that the Packers would end up at 8-8! Go figure they beat the Vikings twice, at Miami and the Bears, a meaningless game except for draft position. I hope Thompson trades down as many times as he can in the first round and can find a way to get three or four picks in the second round. It appears from pick 14 to around 50 they are fairly close in talent. Green Bay could fill three important needs with some very good talent, Rb, TE and Safety. In round two either Miller of AZ State or Newton of Oregon State would be a nice fit. At RB Pittman of Ohio State, Irons of Auburn and Bush of Louisville should be there. And in the safety spot Meriweather of Miami, Griffen of Texas and Weddle of Utah might be available. I know it's early but for me the draft is my football fix until August. What are your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - You never can have too many good players. But the Packers have reached the point where they need players who are going to make a difference. And when you're drafting 16th, you're typically not going to find one unless you're willing to gamble on a player like Moss, when he came out. Warren Sapp was that kind of pick at 12. The Packers can stockpile picks forever, but they aren't going win any Super Bowls until they get some stud players in that lineup. You're not going to get those trading down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Calvin B of Arlington Heights - Hi Cliff I am very stubborn, life-long Green Bay Packer and National Football Conference fan. I did cheer for the NFC Bears in the Super Bowl. (my second favorite team) Is there a fundamental difference between the NFC and AFC? What's with the AFC domination over the past decade? Thanks
A: Cliff Christl - They have the best quarterbacks and they had the three best players in the game last season: Manning, Brady and Tomlinson. That's largely why the Colts, Patriots and Chargers were the three best teams. The NFC was superior when Montana, Rice and Lawrence Taylor were maybe the three best players in the game.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Marc of Beloit - Hi Cliff, nice to have you back! On another website I saw a discussion of the best receivers of all time, and pretty much everyone just automatically says "Jerry Rice". I think the issue is a bit cloudier, as many people have only a vague idea at best of who Don Hutson was. Jerry Rice is definitely on the short list of the greatest players ever, but I think Hutson was just as talented, and far more revolutionary. Hutson invented some of the routes Rice ran all those years. After all, if it weren't for Don Hutson would we have any idea who Jerry Rice is?
A: Cliff Christl - You're right. Hutson was way ahead of his time and on a different plane than all the other receivers of his day. Players from back then have told me he could play today and be a star. But remember that Hutson's biggest years came during WW II when talent in the league was diluted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff of Minneapolis - Great to have you back, Cliff! Hope you had a good time away from the grind. Enjoyed your blog on the need to add elite players to the Packers in order to be serious contenders. It seems that the Packers have a couple of players who have shown occasional flashes of elite ability in Collins and Hawk. What is it that separates them from advancing to that level or consistent excellence? Is it lack of experience? Or do they just not possess the extreme level of talent needed to rise to that top level?
A: Cliff Christl - I haven't seen it in Collins. He's a talent, but I don't think all the ingredients are there. For one, I don't think he's smart enough to be special. He's a good tackler. He can run and shows range. But I don't think he has the ball skills or the instincts to be a playmaker. Plus, it's tough for a safety to dominate. Troy Polamalu did two years ago, but that's unusual. As for Hawk, I think he has a chance to reach that level. He's not Lawrence Taylor. And I don't think he'll ever be an Urlacher. Urlacher is 6-4; Hawk is 6-1. That's why I don't know how much more weight or how much more explosive Hawk can get. We'll see. If he stays healthy, I don't think there's any question that he'll be a good to very good player for a long time. Will he be special, good enough to be the leader of a Super Bowl champion defense? I'm skeptical. But he seems to be a highly dedicated player. That should help.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: terry wurster of sister bay and sarasota, fl - While I know the entire scouting world has green bay taking Cal running back Marshawn Lynch, I think the position that most negatively impacted the Pack last season was the dreadful play of Marquand Manuel. I understand your playmaker theory and do subscribe to it, so if a potentially impactful player is available at a position of weakness, doesn't it make sense to address this position with the Number sixteen pick? Spending part of my year in Florida, I get to see a lot of regional florida coverage and the Gators have a Junior coming out named Reggie Nelson that would be a perfect fit for our defense. The kid is fast, has a nose for the ball, makes plays with the ball in the air and is willing to stick his nose in on tackles to absolutely destroy people. Plus he is a character guy that recently lost his mother and seems committed to doing things the right way in her memory. This kid has special written all over him and should be available with pick number sixteen. Does it make sense to further shore up the defense to make it a truly special unit and try to win games scoring fewer points? Running back seems to be a real hit and miss position and there seems to be some character issues with the kid from Cal. Your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - Having drafted Hawk last year, I think it makes some sense for the Packers to draft defense again this year if there's somebody there who could be a Polamalu or Ed Reed. Considering Favre's age and Rodgers' talent level, I don't think the Packers are going to win anything that matters with offense for awhile here. So, again, I think it makes some sense to build on defense. Plus, at 16, the biggest and best offensive playmakers are going to be gone by then. A future defensive standout is more likely to slip, especially at a low priority position like safety. I remember in '04 some fans on these chats clamored for the Packers to draft Bob Sanders. They were right. He went 44th, 19 picks after Ahmad Carroll. The Packers drafted at the higher priority position and got burned. Sanders isn't even as big as Carroll, but he's a player. I don't think the Packers would have won the Super Bowl this past season if they had drafted him, but they'd look a lot better on paper.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Wade of Bettendorf - Since TE's and Safety's are typically two of the lowest paying positions, does it make sense for TT to go after the better FA players in these positions and then draft young skilled positions such as RB, WR and CB? This will help the Packers in the short and long term.
A: Cliff Christl - I think the best tight end is Daniel Graham and he's a blocking type. He'd be an upgrade over Bubba probably -- at least last year's version -- but Graham isn't going to stretch the field or make a big difference. Again, the Packers have solid starters at most positions. They could use a third receiver, a third corner. I see those as positions they may target in free agency. But safety and tight end could be two others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John of Columbia City - Cliff, The free agency situation this year appears to be more crazy than ever. A quick look at the list of free agents is absolutely nothing to get excited about. This looks like the worst free agent pool ever yet with all the money to spend, word is a lot of teams are chomping at the bit to dive in and overpay these mediocre players. Don't you think the owners just keep shooting themselves in the foot during free agency? They complain about salaries but then by overpaying average talent they run the market up for the guys who really deserve the big paydays. There are a lot of teams with huge cap space this year but my guess is that in two years there will be a majority of teams pressed tight against the cap once again because of overspending in a year like this. I think thompson will probably be somewhat conservative again this year unless he has one bigger name he is pursuing. Why pay big time for busts, over the hill players, average performers and underachievers? The more I see other teams go nuts in free agency the more it looks like Thompson knows what he is doing. Whats your take on all this?
A: Cliff Christl - It should be obvious to anyone that you don't win Super Bowls by going on spending sprees in free agency. You become the Washington Redskins and the Minnesota Vikings. But if the Packers could add another Ryan Pickett type or two -- good players who'll help the infrastructure -- it will increase their chances of getting a little better, protect themselves a little more against injury, help guard against the inevitable of some of their aging players losing it, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Michael Mullendore of Ellicott City, Md - I would like to say that I think Ted Thompson has demonstrated remarkable focus in his disciplined approach to rebuilding. Last years draft looks like it will eventually prove to be a complete success and his acquisitions of Woodson and Pickett bore tangible fruit. Here is my (hopefully realistic) dream for this year: Go get Ken Hamlin and Daniel Graham in free agency and then take Marshawn Lynch if he is available or one of the top WR with the first round in the draft. I am assuming that eventually Green will be resigned and that the talk of Moss will dry up and blow over. We really don't need another head case after suffering through the likes of McKenzie and Walker. With moderate help from the rest of the draft, I would feel pretty good heading into the season. What say you?
A: Cliff Christl - I think those moves might make them a better team. But I don't think it would make a dramatic difference. Say, they look like an 8-8 team on paper right now; I don't think Hamlin and Graham even make them look like a 9-7 team. Now, if Lynch could do for the Packers what Maroney did for the Patriots last year, for example, then maybe you've got a team with a 9-7 look to it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Thrane Smith of Green bay - If the Packers trade up in the draft and take Calvin Johnson, and then with how good the offense and defense were clicking at the end of last season, doesn't that make them the team to beat in the NFC?
A: Cliff Christl - Let's be realistic. Some people think Johnson might be the No. 1 pick in the draft. The No. 1 pick is worth 3,000 points in the trade value system that almost all NFL teams use as a guide in trading draft picks. The 16th pick is worth 1,000 points. The Packers' second-round pick will be worth somewhere around 420 points. If you packaged all of the Packers' draft picks, you couldn't move up to get Johnson. If the Packers offered their first and second-round choices, the best they could do would be to get up to about No. 8. Thanks for all the questions. Good day.
BACK TO TOP
© 2006, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. All rights reserved. Produced by Journal Interactive | Privacy Policy.
Q: Digger of Andover - Hi Cliff: According to JS reports, Koren Robinson is as sober as a judge these days. Maybe he's cleaning up his act just to spite you. However, even IF he continues on the righteous path, he wouldn't be eligible for reinstatement until mid- September. [Is that correct?] If so, is there any chance he'd be able to contribute at all at that point with no camp? Maybe its analogous to a holdout. Will TT get the last laugh on CC?
A: Cliff Christl - Digger, you posted first, we'll start with you. First, let's see if he's still sober and eligible in September. He tinkled away $12 million in Minnesota because he couldn't stay sober. Now, at least, unlike when the Packers foolishly signed him, Robinson has undergone treatment. Consequently, I'm assuming that he at least has a chance to overcome his addiction. Again, it was stupid for Ted Thompson to sign him when he did. If Thompson had waited until now to do it, it might have made some sense. I stand by my column of last September. I'd write it again. But I wouldn't necessarily write it today. Robinson is six months removed from his last incident; not less than a month. No doubt, he has seen doctors, counselors, etc., who maybe have made progress with him. And he has been away from football, an environment that he hasn't dealt with very well in the past. That said, Koren Robinson has been a disappointment as an NFL receiver. In six years, he has caught more than 40 passes twice. I think there's a much better chance of Robinson continuing to be a tease for teams and also fans like you than a playmaker.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Marlowe of LA - Cliff, why are you such a hard-boiled fella?
A: Cliff Christl - So I'm not competing with you or others for the Mr. Personality or Miss Congeniality awards. I'm not sure my immediate family would agree with you, either. But even so, if I'm blunt speaking, hard-edged or hard-boiled and highly competitive, I won't offer any apologies for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Terry Huebner of Hinsdale, IL - I read somewhere recently that Mike Sherman was widely known to be very thin-skinned and read everything written about himself and took negative things personally. He also allegedly only got along with one of the beat writers that followed the team. Did you find that to be your experience? And if you know, who was the favorite writer? Also, where do you stand on resigning or keeping guys such as Green, KGB, Ferguson, Franks and Martin?
A: Cliff Christl - I haven't known too many head coaches who weren't sensitive to criticism and didn't confront the media about criticism directed at them. That goes with the territory. I don't know which writer it would be. I felt I had a typical civil, professional, but sometimes adversarial relationship with him. I can't speak for others. Also, it doesn't matter whether a head coach gets along with writers or not. Who cares? Personally, I thought Sherman was more self-righteous than overly sensitive. I think KGB is worth bringing back as a pass rush specialist. Green is worth brining back if he'll agree to an incentive laden contract and forego the big up-front money. Franks and Martin might be worth bringing back because they don't have anybody else. Maybe the same goes for Ferguson, although he's a run-of-the-mill player and will never be anything more than that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Al of Stamford, CT - I remember back in 2003, when the Packers traded the 62nd pick in the draft for Al Harris, you somewhat opposed the trade, because Al Harris was in his late 20's at the time and had limited upside. I would consider Al Harris a Pro Bowl caliber player even though he hasn't made one yet. Statistically speaking, what are the chances of landing a Pro Bowl type player at #62 in the draft? Sure, Al Harris is older and maybe only has 1 or 2 good years left in him, but he has been a solid shut-down CB for the past 2 or 3 years. He's not a game-changer, but I'm sure that most teams that play a man-to-man cover scheme would take Al Harris as their starting CB any day. Now do you think his performance has justified the trade or would you still rather keep the pick?
A: Cliff Christl - The odds of getting a player better than Harris with the 62nd pick probably were slim. In fact, a quick glance of my research shows that only one player drafted 62nd has become a Pro Bowl player and that was wide receiver Tony Hill of Dallas, chosen in 1977. Then again, Harris isn't a Pro Bowl player, either. You might think he is, but I'm also sure there have been a lot of other good players taken at No. 62, as well. Anyway, what have the Packers accomplished with Harris? Around the time the Eagles traded Harris, they drafted Sheldon Brown, 59th, and Lito Sheppard, 26th, and they've had a better defense and a better cornerback situation; and best of all, for the Eagles, Brown and Sheppard are 26, 27 years old. They have a future. The Bears' two corners are second- and fourth-round picks and young. The Patriots drafted Asante Samuel in the fourth round. So I'd take my chances on a draft pick, recognizing that the odds would be less than 50-50 -- probably even less than one in three -- of getting a better player than Harris. But that's how you build championship teams: By occasionally striking it rich on a player such as Samuel. What have the Packers won with Harris? Sure, they'd be in trouble without him. But they aren't going to win a Super Bowl with him, either. And that is the only objective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mad Dog of East Texas - Cliff- My question concerns your blog on Jenkins but first of all I am still in the camp that that says Mike Sherman does not have it in his mental makeup to ever win the Super Bowl. Until this year Dungy was a coach who is easily one of the class acts in all of sports or anything else, but with the team he has had in Indy and the a couple of the teams he had in Tampa, he did come up way short to many times and he was one extremely bad pass interference call from being upset with by a less talented team in New England at home again this year. But Dungy did win it all and there is nothing else to offer on that. But in all the playoff games he lost and it was more than a few, he had vastly superior teams and lost when he had no business losing. The loss to the Steelers was inexcusable with his loaded team. As far as Sherman goes, when he went out to Philly after having practiced and installed a defensive game plan only to change the entire game plan AFTER the last team meeting and informed the team the day of the game spoke volumes. He appears to lack an inner conviction. I am guessing Lombardi never had a midnight handwringing episode where he changed the entire game plan hours before the game, and what's more Holmgren wasn't that type either. And of course you can say how could I possibly be in a position to know this or offer an intelligent opinion on this as I don't have day to day access, I can only go by what I see. But as far as the defensive game plan being changed in the Philly game like it was, there are a number of Packers that are from East Texas and one of them lives here and I personally asked him if that happened because it was BARELY reported on by the reporters who do have access and that hugely important lack of leadership decision out of Sherman was deep sixed by the reporting world. So when I heard that and then confirmed in in person, I was positive the Sherman doesn't have the gravel in his gut to go the distance. So I am still in that camp and am staying there and if your observation was why don't the people who had that opinion stay with it, I am, but my question is why did 99.9% of the media let the nervous nanny decision made by Sherman get such a free pass. That incident told me everything I needed to know and that is Sherman needed to be somewhere else but coaching my team. If I was able to confirm the story, without access, why couldn't the pro's who cover get that one out. I mean good night, how do you let that one go by. Mike Sherman will NEVER EVER win a championship under any circumstance. I'll retract it if he ever does. My question on Jenkins is you said he was given a big contract based on four games, but Jenkins has looked like a pretty decent player since he got here. Do you think Thompson gave him the money based on four games, or do you think he looked at every single play Jenkins made while in Green Bay. I think sometimes if a player comes out of nowhere and doesn't have the pedigree up front, that player is judged on that rather than what he does. I know you have reported good things on Kampman, but I get the impression you don't consider him an elite player and I probably never will, but the reality is he can line up with the best of them, even though he wasn't a star first round pick. Johnny Unitas wasn't either, nor Tom Brady. I'm thinking Jenkins is pretty good and probably actually is worth the contract. Would the Packers have been better off letting him go rather than pay that money. Thomspon seems to know talent, and hardly seems the type to overpay for anything. I mean the guy probably clips coupons for paper towels around the house.
A: Cliff Christl - Boy, it's amazing how much insight some people gain sitting on a bar stool or talking in a barber shop or merely watching football on TV in East Texas. I guess that can make you an authority on every coach in the NFL; how the media operates, you name it. No wonder you need to wear 10-gallon hats down there. Or do they not fit? As for Jenkins, I think he was worth signing. I wrote that the risk was minimal because of his work ethic. The point I made was that he wouldn't have gotten that kind of money if he hadn't played as well as he did the last month of the season. He still would have gotten a nice contract, but not $6 million plus guaranteed. You're misrepresenting what I wrote. Again, I don't know if you have a comprehension problem, like to exaggerate or what, but you seem to have trouble accurately reflecting what others have written or said. So how exaggerated is your Sherman story? As for Dungy, he had no playmakers on offense in Tampa and serious shortcomings on defense in Indy. I don't think he underachieved. But if you do, I give you credit for standing by your convictions. As for Kampman, I think I wrote long before many others that he was a very good player, the kind of core player that every champion needs. But, no, he isn't Jason Taylor or Julius Peppers. He isn't somebody opposing teams are going to design their game plans around. He's not Reggie White. Look at the tackles he played against this year and how many times he faced a backup or somebody on the bubble of being benched. Kampman is the epitome of a professional and was a deserving Pro Bowl pick this year, but if he's your best defensive player, you're not likely to win a Super Bowl unless you have a great quarterback and a great offense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jon Erkkila of Apple Valley, MN - Cliff, As for acquiring Randy Moss...his strength is going deep. Favre's strengths have never centered around throwing the deep ball. Certainly Moss may open things up underneath, but is that worth it with all his baggage plus the dollars??
A: Cliff Christl - Your point about the deep ball is well taken, but that's Moss' game and what he'd do is make plays on underthrown, maybe even overthrown balls, by outjumping and outrunning defenders. I think he's worth exploring. I wouldn't pay too much in terms of draft picks or players because I don't think he's going to turn the Packers into a Super Bowl contender. You certainly don't give up a No. 1 or a No. 2, maybe even a No. 3, for a player who might help you get to a wild card game.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: gene of chicago - Thanks for taking my question, Cliff. I know how skeptical you are about some of this stuff, but John Czarnecki on Fox Sports Website reported that Marshawn Lynch had a lackluster combine and was sliding at this point. Given the previous level of buzz about Lynch, do you agree?
A: Cliff Christl - John Czarnecki is a good reporter. He's a credible source. I wasn't at the combine, but I'd trust what he wrote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: James of Sacramento - Cliff, if the Pack were to add another pass rusher to the lineup, would KGB have much trade value given his "palatable" salary at an impact position? 2nd or 3rd round pick perhaps? And who do you see available on the free agent market who is better than what we have right now? Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - I don't think KGB would have much trade value at age 30 -- that's what he'll be next season -- and with his contract. He has value to the Packers, but probably not to any other team at that price. I think Adalius Thomas probably is the best player available in free agency, but I doubt if the Packers will make a pitch for him. I could see them making a run at a veteran receiver, maybe a Drew Bennett or Kevin Curtis. Perhaps Stallworth, although his lack of durability is scary. The best free agents were franchised. There isn't anybody that's going to turn a team around. If you're a team on the verge of winning a Super Bowl, you might be able to add a player or two to get you over the hump. I don't think the Packers are in that situation. So I don't see them making a big splash in free agency. It doesn't make sense at this point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Kevin of Chicago - Cliff, I know that you haven't been back from vacation very long, what do you think about an Aaron Rodgers for Randy Moss trade? Might there be anything to this rumor?
A: Cliff Christl - You're right, I haven't thought about it. On the surface, I don't think I'd give up on Rodgers without giving him a chance to play first. I haven't been overly impressed with him. The Packers certainly aren't champing at the bit to play him or they wouldn't be so eager to get Favre back. But until Rodgers plays, you can't write him off. There is ability there. It doesn't wow you. But he's not Rich Campbell, where after one look, a coach could conclude that he can't play. So, again, at first thought, it doesn't make sense to me to trade a young quarterback that you've invested two years in for a 30-year old receiver with a checkered past. I can't imagine the Packers doing that. It sounds to me like a subject that's just babble for talk radio or a chat like this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tom of Stillwater, MN - Cliff. You can label me a pimp, or worse, but I'd suit up that guy with the horns and a tail if I thought he could help the Packers. If you can get Randy Moss for a second round pick you do that deal every day, and twice on Sundays (four times on football Sundays). Why not?
A: Cliff Christl - Taking that position doesn't make you an agent of lascivious behavior -- how's that for a more politically correct way of repeating what you wrote? -- but I don't think Moss is worth a second-round pick. I would bet my bottom dollar that Randy Moss wouldn't win a Super Bowl for the Packers at this stage of his career and, more importantly, Favre's career. If the Packers had drafted Moss, they might have won another Super Bowl or two. But that opportunity has passed. What about giving up a third? That's worth thinking about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: SCOTT SIELEMAN of oelwein, iowa - who is crazy enough to want a dirty rottin cheatin parking ticket female officer assulter, no catch over the middle and only play when he wants to on the 12 time world champions ! ! green bay packers? not me
A: Cliff Christl - I know some fans think that way. I'd argue that the Packers aren't the Boy Scouts. If they can get Moss for cheap, why not? My objection with the Packers' decision to sign Koren Robinson wasn't that he was a bad guy; it was the risks that he represented at that time. The risks so outweighed the possible rewards that it was a dumb decision. If the Packers could get Moss for, say, a fourth-round pick and a reduced cap number -- that wouldn't be a dumb decision.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Josh of Madison - Heya Cliff, thanks for taking my question! Well, I just watched SportsCenter and have read fairly recent reports about the possible Raiders-Packers Moss trade. The latest is, Aaron Rodgers for Moss straight up. Think that's a good deal? Also, SC mentioned Moss isn't dynamic, that he isn't a great route runner, only good for stretching the field vertically. I think this is what the Packers need since Driver and Jennings seem to make their money in the middle of the field. How do you feel about that? Do you think Moss would be a good fit for the Packers in that respect? Thanks for your time.
A: Cliff Christl - I can't believe that Moss has just lost it. I realize he's 30 years old and on the downside, but he played on a team that had no quarterback. Aaron Brooks and Andrew Walter could turn Jerry Rice into Ollie Smith. So, yes, I think Moss would give the Packers a vertical threat that they don't have now and be a good complement to Driver and Jennings. I think he'd improve the Packers' chances of making the playoffs next year. But I don't think he'll have any more Super Bowl rings than he does now come next spring.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: daniel of milwaukee - you still think the packers wont go to the playoffs if they get moss. i think that will be the best offense in the nfl brett,driver,jennings moss robinson,when he comes back,and marshawn lynch if he's still on the board and i still think they should go after daniel graham and if our offence clicks our defense would be one of the best they were just on the field to long last year but u have to admit with all those rookies we still played one hell of a year i think in about 2 years we will be a great team what do u think
A: Cliff Christl - I think if a worm had hips, yadda, yadda, yadda. You know the rest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ann of Amherst, NH - Hi, Cliff! I hope your vacation was good time off. It's nice for us to have you back! Peyton Manning has his ring and, assuming his career continues w/out serious injury, he is on track to pass all the Marino records, including the ones that Favre will probably take over this next year. Favre has been known for his tough guy persona and his ability to improvise; Manning is known for his meticulous planning (and until this past year, was almost incapable of improvising -- if things didn't go as planned, his frustration was obvious). So, is there any thought that Favre may actually have underachieved in his career -- that if he had added offseason practices w/ his receivers, and more film study and self-improvement goals, he might have been even greater? Favre gets away from football in the offseason, Manning seems to work almost as hard. I have loved watching Favre, but w/ all the talk about Manning's preparation (and Brady's work ethic), I have at times wondered . . . or would all that planning have detracted from his "roughrider" style of play? Thanks again for all of YOUR offseason study and prep.
A: Cliff Christl - Good question. But I think it's like chocolate and vanilla. Take your pick. Favre's game was making something happen out of nothing; Manning's game is typical of the NFL's great dropback quarterbacks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Don of Dallas - If the idea at the combine is to simulate how players will perform in game conditions why don't they test players in full gear verses in shorts? Seems like the ability to move and play with the weight and bulk would change the dynamics.
A: Cliff Christl - I doubt if the agents would allow it. Plus, they've always tested players in shorts and T-shirts. So the standards have been set.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Michael Young of Jersey - Do the Packers owe anything to Favre?
A: Cliff Christl - His salary if he makes the team. I'm not trying to be a smart aleck. I think they should retire his number after he's done playing. But while he's playing, they don't owe him anything. If he comes to camp and it's obvious he can't play anymore, they should at least give him the opportunity to retire. But if he says no, they'd have no choice but to cut him. That's not going to happen, but that's how you have to do business in the NFL. There are 32 teams in the league. At the end of each year, one has succeeded and, for the most part, the other 31 have failed. There's no room for sentiment. Look back at the history of Super Bowl winners who held on to their aging stars too long.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Frank Miller of Cudahy WI - Cliff: With the combine going on all we hear about are 40 times. How much attention do teams pay to the 40? Do they use it just to compare players in the same drafts? The way they time it looks pretty subjective and I have yet to see anyone running down the field in shorts on a Sunday
A: Cliff Christl - True, but it's a game of speed. Not many players can play, at least at the offensive skill positions and at all the defensive positions, if they can't run. So teams need to verify that quality in a player.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Vince Cuilla of Millersville - Cliff, your recent article about the Packers finding elite players really brought back some memories. While no one can truly say what might have been, how about gazing into your Christl ball and giving us your take on the shifting NFL balance of power, if Starr had selected Montana and Lott? Thanks, Vince
A: Cliff Christl - Good question. The 49ers won three Super Bowls thanks to Montana, Lott and Jerry Rice. Their other players were no better than what the Packers had. Fred Dean was special, but probably not any more gifted than Ezra Johnson. Go look at the linemen, the linebackers and the rest of those 49ers' rosters. So put Montana and Lott in the same lineup with James Lofton, who was faster and more explosive than Rice, and the Packers might have 15 championships to their credit instead of 12.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Steven Wells of Nashville, Tn - Hi Cliff. In your opinion should GB draft a RB, WR, or S with the first round pick? Landry sure looks like a stud from the combine workouts. I would love to see him wearing the green and gold this fall and safety sure needs upgrading. Many thanks for your reply.
A: Cliff Christl - If Landry is available, I'm guessing he'd get serious consideration from the Packers. Again, I don't think the position matters as much as getting a player with a big upside.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Trevor of Kenora - Hi Cliff-thanks for the chats, and welcome back. Regarding the playmaker theory and the value of high draft picks, are there certain positions that teams should emphasize more when they're drafting very high in the first round? In other words, would a team like Detroit be better off drafting a tackle like Joe Thomas or a receiver like Calvin Johnson? Can tackles and safeties be considered as playmakers, or are teams better off focusing on the so-called skill positions when they have a high pick, even if a tackle is rated more highly on their draft board? Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - There was a day when personnel people subscribed to the theory that you take a good big man over a good small man every time. I think that was part of Tom Braatz's thinking when he drafted Mandarich over Barry Sanders. Braatz was old school. But I think that pick debunked that theory and now I think most teams would go playmaker first. Look at the salaries and cap numbers around the league and you'll be able to determine the priority positions. No. 1, it's quarterback. Then, it's big-play receivers, running backs and left tackles on offense. On defense, it's pass rushers and corners and maybe those few rare, every-down linebackers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John Dickmann of Bremerton, WA - Cliff, since you must have some knowledge of past Bears ownership and their tendencies, what's the deal with the cheap way they are treating Lovie Smith. (and for that matter Ron Rivera) Is they're apparent refusal to pay the going wage of a now experienced NFL coach a hold back do days of frugal George Halas? I can only assume Virginia McCaskey & family "live" off the Bears franchise and it's profits. The way this does affect the Packers org is that if the Bears are not willing to lock up Smith to a deal soon, don't you think it's quite possible he would coach out the remainder of his contract and move on to another org? Are they really that foolish to lose a good coach after they finally found one?
A: Cliff Christl - The two sides were posturing in negotiations. No big deal. After all the bartering, they've come to an agreement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Rudy of Kaukauna - Is Randy Moss just another Ruvel Martin at this stage of his career? If he's lost a step then he's just a big body that can't separate from DB's. If the Packers can get him for a third round pick and not have to assume a lot of guaranteed money then he's certainly worth a look, if not I'd pass on him.
A: Cliff Christl - Randy Moss probably could still lap Ruvell Martin in a 40.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: steveplotkin of Henderson, NV - It would have been nice to be sitting in the 10th slot in the draft instead of the 16th. I would have never thought that the Packers would end up at 8-8! Go figure they beat the Vikings twice, at Miami and the Bears, a meaningless game except for draft position. I hope Thompson trades down as many times as he can in the first round and can find a way to get three or four picks in the second round. It appears from pick 14 to around 50 they are fairly close in talent. Green Bay could fill three important needs with some very good talent, Rb, TE and Safety. In round two either Miller of AZ State or Newton of Oregon State would be a nice fit. At RB Pittman of Ohio State, Irons of Auburn and Bush of Louisville should be there. And in the safety spot Meriweather of Miami, Griffen of Texas and Weddle of Utah might be available. I know it's early but for me the draft is my football fix until August. What are your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - You never can have too many good players. But the Packers have reached the point where they need players who are going to make a difference. And when you're drafting 16th, you're typically not going to find one unless you're willing to gamble on a player like Moss, when he came out. Warren Sapp was that kind of pick at 12. The Packers can stockpile picks forever, but they aren't going win any Super Bowls until they get some stud players in that lineup. You're not going to get those trading down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Calvin B of Arlington Heights - Hi Cliff I am very stubborn, life-long Green Bay Packer and National Football Conference fan. I did cheer for the NFC Bears in the Super Bowl. (my second favorite team) Is there a fundamental difference between the NFC and AFC? What's with the AFC domination over the past decade? Thanks
A: Cliff Christl - They have the best quarterbacks and they had the three best players in the game last season: Manning, Brady and Tomlinson. That's largely why the Colts, Patriots and Chargers were the three best teams. The NFC was superior when Montana, Rice and Lawrence Taylor were maybe the three best players in the game.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Marc of Beloit - Hi Cliff, nice to have you back! On another website I saw a discussion of the best receivers of all time, and pretty much everyone just automatically says "Jerry Rice". I think the issue is a bit cloudier, as many people have only a vague idea at best of who Don Hutson was. Jerry Rice is definitely on the short list of the greatest players ever, but I think Hutson was just as talented, and far more revolutionary. Hutson invented some of the routes Rice ran all those years. After all, if it weren't for Don Hutson would we have any idea who Jerry Rice is?
A: Cliff Christl - You're right. Hutson was way ahead of his time and on a different plane than all the other receivers of his day. Players from back then have told me he could play today and be a star. But remember that Hutson's biggest years came during WW II when talent in the league was diluted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff of Minneapolis - Great to have you back, Cliff! Hope you had a good time away from the grind. Enjoyed your blog on the need to add elite players to the Packers in order to be serious contenders. It seems that the Packers have a couple of players who have shown occasional flashes of elite ability in Collins and Hawk. What is it that separates them from advancing to that level or consistent excellence? Is it lack of experience? Or do they just not possess the extreme level of talent needed to rise to that top level?
A: Cliff Christl - I haven't seen it in Collins. He's a talent, but I don't think all the ingredients are there. For one, I don't think he's smart enough to be special. He's a good tackler. He can run and shows range. But I don't think he has the ball skills or the instincts to be a playmaker. Plus, it's tough for a safety to dominate. Troy Polamalu did two years ago, but that's unusual. As for Hawk, I think he has a chance to reach that level. He's not Lawrence Taylor. And I don't think he'll ever be an Urlacher. Urlacher is 6-4; Hawk is 6-1. That's why I don't know how much more weight or how much more explosive Hawk can get. We'll see. If he stays healthy, I don't think there's any question that he'll be a good to very good player for a long time. Will he be special, good enough to be the leader of a Super Bowl champion defense? I'm skeptical. But he seems to be a highly dedicated player. That should help.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: terry wurster of sister bay and sarasota, fl - While I know the entire scouting world has green bay taking Cal running back Marshawn Lynch, I think the position that most negatively impacted the Pack last season was the dreadful play of Marquand Manuel. I understand your playmaker theory and do subscribe to it, so if a potentially impactful player is available at a position of weakness, doesn't it make sense to address this position with the Number sixteen pick? Spending part of my year in Florida, I get to see a lot of regional florida coverage and the Gators have a Junior coming out named Reggie Nelson that would be a perfect fit for our defense. The kid is fast, has a nose for the ball, makes plays with the ball in the air and is willing to stick his nose in on tackles to absolutely destroy people. Plus he is a character guy that recently lost his mother and seems committed to doing things the right way in her memory. This kid has special written all over him and should be available with pick number sixteen. Does it make sense to further shore up the defense to make it a truly special unit and try to win games scoring fewer points? Running back seems to be a real hit and miss position and there seems to be some character issues with the kid from Cal. Your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - Having drafted Hawk last year, I think it makes some sense for the Packers to draft defense again this year if there's somebody there who could be a Polamalu or Ed Reed. Considering Favre's age and Rodgers' talent level, I don't think the Packers are going to win anything that matters with offense for awhile here. So, again, I think it makes some sense to build on defense. Plus, at 16, the biggest and best offensive playmakers are going to be gone by then. A future defensive standout is more likely to slip, especially at a low priority position like safety. I remember in '04 some fans on these chats clamored for the Packers to draft Bob Sanders. They were right. He went 44th, 19 picks after Ahmad Carroll. The Packers drafted at the higher priority position and got burned. Sanders isn't even as big as Carroll, but he's a player. I don't think the Packers would have won the Super Bowl this past season if they had drafted him, but they'd look a lot better on paper.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Wade of Bettendorf - Since TE's and Safety's are typically two of the lowest paying positions, does it make sense for TT to go after the better FA players in these positions and then draft young skilled positions such as RB, WR and CB? This will help the Packers in the short and long term.
A: Cliff Christl - I think the best tight end is Daniel Graham and he's a blocking type. He'd be an upgrade over Bubba probably -- at least last year's version -- but Graham isn't going to stretch the field or make a big difference. Again, the Packers have solid starters at most positions. They could use a third receiver, a third corner. I see those as positions they may target in free agency. But safety and tight end could be two others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John of Columbia City - Cliff, The free agency situation this year appears to be more crazy than ever. A quick look at the list of free agents is absolutely nothing to get excited about. This looks like the worst free agent pool ever yet with all the money to spend, word is a lot of teams are chomping at the bit to dive in and overpay these mediocre players. Don't you think the owners just keep shooting themselves in the foot during free agency? They complain about salaries but then by overpaying average talent they run the market up for the guys who really deserve the big paydays. There are a lot of teams with huge cap space this year but my guess is that in two years there will be a majority of teams pressed tight against the cap once again because of overspending in a year like this. I think thompson will probably be somewhat conservative again this year unless he has one bigger name he is pursuing. Why pay big time for busts, over the hill players, average performers and underachievers? The more I see other teams go nuts in free agency the more it looks like Thompson knows what he is doing. Whats your take on all this?
A: Cliff Christl - It should be obvious to anyone that you don't win Super Bowls by going on spending sprees in free agency. You become the Washington Redskins and the Minnesota Vikings. But if the Packers could add another Ryan Pickett type or two -- good players who'll help the infrastructure -- it will increase their chances of getting a little better, protect themselves a little more against injury, help guard against the inevitable of some of their aging players losing it, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Michael Mullendore of Ellicott City, Md - I would like to say that I think Ted Thompson has demonstrated remarkable focus in his disciplined approach to rebuilding. Last years draft looks like it will eventually prove to be a complete success and his acquisitions of Woodson and Pickett bore tangible fruit. Here is my (hopefully realistic) dream for this year: Go get Ken Hamlin and Daniel Graham in free agency and then take Marshawn Lynch if he is available or one of the top WR with the first round in the draft. I am assuming that eventually Green will be resigned and that the talk of Moss will dry up and blow over. We really don't need another head case after suffering through the likes of McKenzie and Walker. With moderate help from the rest of the draft, I would feel pretty good heading into the season. What say you?
A: Cliff Christl - I think those moves might make them a better team. But I don't think it would make a dramatic difference. Say, they look like an 8-8 team on paper right now; I don't think Hamlin and Graham even make them look like a 9-7 team. Now, if Lynch could do for the Packers what Maroney did for the Patriots last year, for example, then maybe you've got a team with a 9-7 look to it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Thrane Smith of Green bay - If the Packers trade up in the draft and take Calvin Johnson, and then with how good the offense and defense were clicking at the end of last season, doesn't that make them the team to beat in the NFC?
A: Cliff Christl - Let's be realistic. Some people think Johnson might be the No. 1 pick in the draft. The No. 1 pick is worth 3,000 points in the trade value system that almost all NFL teams use as a guide in trading draft picks. The 16th pick is worth 1,000 points. The Packers' second-round pick will be worth somewhere around 420 points. If you packaged all of the Packers' draft picks, you couldn't move up to get Johnson. If the Packers offered their first and second-round choices, the best they could do would be to get up to about No. 8. Thanks for all the questions. Good day.
BACK TO TOP
© 2006, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. All rights reserved. Produced by Journal Interactive | Privacy Policy.