motife
03-14-2007, 06:25 PM
http://www.jsonline.com/graphics/sports/mugs/columns/1cliffchristl.jpg
Q: Tim Mannchen of Savage MN - I have no question, Cliff. Just my best wishes for an enjoyable and healthy retirement. I will miss your insight, thoroughness, and the effort you put into your work. I have been reading the Journal-Sentinel for 35+ years now and there are few writers whose work always drew me to the paper. You have been one and Jay Reed was another. Two very talented guys with perspectives and viewpoints that deserve a respectful hearing. Well done! You will be missed. Respectfully, Tim Mannchen
A: Cliff Christl - Tim, you posted first other than someone who asked the same question that I answered last week or the week before. So we'll start with you even though I hope to stick mostly with football on this chat. Thanks for the kind words, but the late Lloyd Bentsen would look me in the eye and rightfully say, "You're no Jay Reed." Jay Reed was one of the most talented and down-to-earth people I've ever worked with in this business. I'm not a hunter. I'm not a fisherman. But I'd read Jay sometimes when I had absolutely no interest in the subject, just because he was that good. For those of you unfamiliar with Jay, he was the old outdoor writer for the Milwaukee Journal when I joined the paper.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ken of Chesterfield, MI - Cliff, I'm going to miss your straight-forward, totally objective columns and chats. (Maybe on your last workday, you can tell us if you were secretly a fan of the Packers all along.) You said you have an extensive library collection at home. Will you be writing a career memoir, be a guest columnist, change careers or ride your bike off into the sunset? Again, you are the primary reason I subscribe to Packer Insider. (Have a great retirement.)
A: Cliff Christl - I'm going to take some time to decide what I want to do, although some books might be in the plans. For sure, I'll be riding that bike off into the sunset. And there will be no secret confessions about being a closet fan. I know some of you don't believe it. But I don't care if they win or lose and I don't think that will change in retirement. I'll let you in on this little secret. In 1989 and '90, I covered the Brewers. That was my beat and I covered some 120 or more baseball games each of those seasons. And during the fall, the Brewers often played on Sunday afternoon at the same time as the Packers. And when the Brewers were at home, at County Stadium, a lot of the media contingent would be standing in the back room keeping one eye on the Packers' game on TV and one eye on the Brewers. On one particular Sunday, Tracy Ringolsby, the longtime baseball writer, asked me why I never even poked my head in once during an entire game to see how the Packers were doing. I told him I had no interest. Baseball was my beat and I sunk all my energy into that job and really didn't pay attention to the Packers for those two years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff Helminiak of Kenai - I could not find your original column where you advocated trading Favre for a second-round pick last year. What were the reasons this would be a good idea? Financially, it doesn't make much difference because the Packers are so far under the cap and because Favre is a brand name that generates tons of revenue for the franchise. On the field, at least this past year, Favre still had a lot of worth. He's no Brady or Manning anymore. At the same time, the offense had very little talent besides Favre and still finished in the top 10 in yards gained. He also provided a great deal of the intangibles Parcells talks about being so important to the quarterback position. Favre is the only thing protecting the Packers from a great crash right now. Thompson is just buying time to upgrade the roster, to give Hawk (or somebody unexpected) time to develop into a difference maker, and to get Rodgers developed into a solid starter. Either these things will happen by the time Favre retires (or suffers great decline as a player) and the Packers will be decent, or these things won't and the Packers will crash. What difference does a second-round pick make in this whole scenario?
A: Cliff Christl - What if that second-round draft pick turned out to be another Larry Allen, or a Tiki Barber, or a Michael Strahan or even a Brett Favre? The goal in the NFL is to win the Super Bowl. That should be the only objective every time that a team makes a personnel move. What chance did the Packers have of winning a Super Bowl after Favre hit 35 or 36? How much brighter would their prospects be if they had beaten the odds and drafted a player with truly special talents in the second round?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mr. Know-It-All of Lunatic Fringe, WI - Hello Cliff and congrats on your pending retirement. My condolences to Mrs. C (if there is one) on having to put up with more of you around the house. Looks like Tightwad Ted is in rare form again this year, sitting on $20+M of cap room when he has plenty of holes to fill on the team - especially after the loss of Green. My question is this, if one subscribes to the CC "Playmaker" theory, then isn't it unwise for TT to draw lines in the sand over the cost of free agents? Should they not, as you noted with Charles Woodson last year, be paying whatever price the market demands for the top level of free agents available, since those are supposedly the ones who have the most impact on wins and losses? The Packers will never run out of cash, because their waiting list for tickets is so long. So why leave cap dollars on the table when there's at least a chance to significantly upgrade 2-3 positions on your team? This, in turn would allow you the most flexibility to draft the best available player, rather than having to decide between leaving a hole unfilled or drafting for need, another virtue that you often preach in this forum. Now that you're on your way to retirement, please give us your honest take on how TT is doing as GM, and a prediction on his future in Green Bay. No more straddling the fence -please give us the real deal - especially since you won't have to be around to take the heat for it. On a side note, I have enjoyed the weekly break these chats have given me the past couple years, even if we didn't see eye to eye. I appreciate the ability to vent after the games, and the fact that you've taken the time to offer this outlet to the fans, moreso than your JSO colleagues. You may come across as a grumpy old windbag, but your work ethic is undeniable. Best wishes for a happy and healthy retirement in the future.
A: Cliff Christl - I think it's a pretty simple answer. Most teams that spend money in free agency don't improve. In fact, they often drop in the standings. Why is that? Because you don't get better with 28-, 29- and 30-plus year old players that other teams don't want. Can you plug holes and find a few competent starters as stopgaps at your weakest positions? Sure. But there's only a few teams that I've seen gain from that and that's because all the other pieces were in place to make a run for the Super Bowl. Those teams' best players were young and their own draft picks. But even then, the last two Super Bowl winners -- the Colts and Steelers -- had almost no free agent starters, at least of any worth. I keep reading fan mail in the local papers from people howling about Thompson's inactivity in free agency and it's comical. You can tell these people are just clueless about the impact free agents have had in the past and what kind of value these players have in general. There weren't more than a handful of truly above average players in this year's entire free agent class. Why? Because if they're above average, teams aren't going to let them go. They'll put a franchise or transition tag on them. One other point on free agency. I think one of the reasons that teams often get worse when they jump into free agency is that they not only get older, which isn't good, but they limit opportunities for young players who might develop. That's still the only school of thought in the NFL: That the key to success is drafting and developing your own players. Even the teams that spend more than the Packers believe that. As for Ted Thompson, I have no strong opinion either way. I guess I'm not as smart as some fans. I think he faced a monumental challenge when he took the job. I think the odds of him succeeding are slim. Let's face it, the Packers won for like 13, 14 years in a row for one reason: Brett Favre. He essentially carried the franchise and made a lot of very average players look a lot better than they were. And you don't replace legends. Once Favre retires, I'm guessing that it is going to take a minimum of 10 years and probably more like 25 to 50 or more to find a quarterback in the same league, not necessarily one even as good or better. So, I guess if I was a betting man I'd say Thompson will fail as a GM. But I don't think there was anybody in the entire league who would have succeeded in his place. Almost every franchise in the history of the league, after a sustained period of success, has crashed. So far, Thompson has prevented a crash. I give him credit for that and I think he's looking out for the best long-term interests of the franchise. If you knew your Packers' history, you'd know what damage a desperate GM could cause. People ask: Why did it take the Packers 25 years after the Lombardi Era to field another champion? The answer probably starts with Dan Devine. So be thankful Thompson isn't out spending money foolishly and putting the franchise in cap peril to the point where it might take another four, five years to rebuild on top of the four, five it's going to take anyway. But it will be interesting to see if the Packers crash after Favre retires or if Thompson can keep them competitive, which may or may not be a good thing. In closing, thanks for the kind wishes and the best to you. I enjoy a good give-and-take and truly appreciate those who disagree but still read what I write. That's a nice compliment, maybe the ultimate compliment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave B. of Iowa City - Cliff, on the draft pick chart that you mention a lot, what is the difference in points between the Pack's #16 and the Chargers # 30 this year? Word on the street is that the Chargers are willing to deal Michael Turner, who played collegiately at Northern Illinois, and averaged 6.3 yards per carry last year with 7 out of 80 going for 20+ yards. The Packers could potentially swap picks with the Chargers in exchange for Turner, and still pick one spot ahead of the Bears. They could still get one of the two deep threat tight ends (Olsen or Miller) or another receiver, as well as an NFL ready, playmaking RB. The Chargers would be able to slide up and get a much better receiver, which they desperately need, than they otherwise would at number 30. Does this deal make sense according to the chart numbers, or are the Packers giving up too much or too little?
A: Cliff Christl - Good question. And I can't imagine why the Packers wouldn't have some interest in Turner. He hasn't been a featured back and that should be a concern, but he's also just 25 years old. What's the difference between the 16th and 30th picks? The 16th is worth 1,000 points. The 30th is worth 620. I don't know what kind of value the Chargers or Packers would place on Turner. His current contract status and his willingness to do a long-term deal with a new team would have a bearing on that. But that's at least a trade that might make some sense. And, again, that's another reason why Thompson might be wise for not spending a bunch of money in free agency. It might allow him the opportunity to trade for a player such as Turner and sign him to a long-term deal. Again, I would hope most fans are at least smart enough to realize that Thompson has a nice resume, works hard and knows football. I know some fans can't see any farther than the end of their nose. But take my word for it, somebody in Thompson's position is going to have a plan mapped out to try and win a Super Bowl. He's not just sitting up in his office counting quarters to see if he can pile his $20 million of cap money up to the roof of the Atrium. At least be smart enough to give him credit for that. His plan might fail, but almost all GMs and coaches in the NFL ultimately get fired in the end because their plan fails.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jamie E. of Milwaukee of thee Wisconsin - Cliff, at this point, I think we can all agree on the "playmaker" and "effective impact of free agency" theories. One theory I have been floating around, and I apologize, I have yet to fully research prior to posting to you was the "coaching pedigree theory". On average, coaches within the professional ranks that win championships have been exposed championship coaching either on a college or professional level. Stotts even though they have the same amount of years as head coaches. Looking at football, Lombardi got his start with the Army program when it was a powerhouse. Bill Walsh started with Dan Rourke, and though they had a negative split, worked under Paul Brown for some years. Walsh spawned Seifert who spawned Pete Carroll, and Holmgren who spawned Gruden and Reid. Parcells spawned Belichick. Lovie Smith was under Mike Martz and Tony Dungy. Tony Dungy played on the Steel Curtain for Chuck Knoll. I can go on and on. The exceptions are what I call "self-starters". Those are head coaches, at least through my brief research, I couldn't find a significant track record with a championship team as a player or coach on any level. Bill Parcells would fall under this category. Jimmy Johnson would to prior to Miami, but he won at Miami prior to winning with the Cowboys. But the "self-starters" are few and far between in this era. It's like a team winning the Super Bowl without a Hall of Fame-caliber QB. It's possible, but it's rare. So my conclusion is that on average, it takes a combination of the "playmaker theory" and "coaching pedigree theory" to win a championship title. Basically, if a head coach has never been exposed to championship winning as a player or head coach at least in the college or pro levels, then their odds are championship success us lower than those who have. I can even apply it to the NBA with Pat Riley once playing for Adolph Rupp, Avery Johnson winning a ring under Greg Popovich, Phil Jackson played on the Knicks championship team, etc. Wonder why Terry Stotts seems over his head? Check his resume.
A: Cliff Christl - Thanks. You're coming around. I would agree wholeheartedly that coaching plays a big role and maybe even a bigger role today. And I give you credit for presenting a strong case just based on knowledge you've gleaned following the game. You've even stumped me on something. Who was Dan Rourke? I know Walsh worked for Marv Levy at Cal, John Ralston at Stanford, Al Davis briefly and Tommy Prothro with the Chargers, as well as Paul Brown. But Dan Rourke? Anyway, I agree that pedigree is important. At the same time, look what happened at all of Vince Lombardi's assistants and former players. They all pretty much failed: Bengtson, Bill Austin, Norb Hecker, Tom Fears, Starr, Gregg. Also, I think most coaches who have climbed the professional ladder worked under a winner somewhere along the line or they wouldn't have continued to keep getting promotions. Mike McCarthy didn't work under successful coaches in New Orleans and San Francisco, but I'm sure the time he spent under Marty Schottenheimer has continued to pay dividends and helped get him to where he's at now. All that said, Pete Carroll hasn't done much in two stints in the pros. Belichick was a losing coach until he lucked out and drafted Tom Brady in the sixth round. I thought Joe Gibbs was the closest thing there was to Vince Lombardi in his first go-around in Washington and now he can't win a thing. Tony Dungy won a Super Bowl in Indy, but couldn't in Tampa Bay. Parcells won two with the Giants, but struck out with three other teams. I think the key is this: Most successful coaches have a system that they stick to, know what kind of players they need for that system and have the ability to develop them to be effective in that system. For example, no matter where John Elway played, I think he would have been a great quarterback. He was so talented that he probably could have succeeded under any coach in any system. On the other hand, I don't think you could say the same about Joe Montana. He didn't have the strongest arm. If he had been drafted by a vertical passing team, which the Packers were when they passed on him, I doubt if he would have had the same kind of career. That's where a Bill Walsh makes a difference. He knew what he needed in a quarterback and figured Montana could grow in his system. That's why so many free agents play well with one team and bomb out with another. They might fit one system, but not another.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: M V Doege of Minocqua - Cliff: What is your opinion on scheduling games abroad? I am definitely not in favor of giving up a Home Game to another location.
A: Cliff Christl - No strong opinion either way. Maybe someone has the foresight that the NFL is going to expand into foreign cities at some point and this will help lay the groundwork. There were people in the NFL in the late '40s, early '50s who thought TV would ruin the game. If you read their quotes now, they sound like fools. So I'm not going to second-guess someone who might have more vision than I have.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Joel of Milwaukee - Ted Thompson can't honestly think he's taking things to the next level with Vernand Morency and Arliss Beach, can he??? This team needs a running back.
A: Cliff Christl - No offense, but I think you're stating the obvious. And do you really think Ted Thompson is blind to the obvious? It's mid-March. The season doesn't start for six months. Ahman Green might have been the best back available in free agency and he's closing in on becoming a has-been. So what should Thompson have done? Just sign somebody to sign someone. I don't know if I've used this term since I was a kid. But my suggestion would be: Don't get your undies in a bundle. How many fans did that last year when Thompson didn't sign a kicker in free agency to replace Longwell. Yet it didn't matter and the fact that they don't have a back any better than Morency at this point doesn't matter. After saying all that, it might turn out that Morency will be the featured back next year. So what? The Packers aren't going to win anything next year. They wouldn't win anything next year if Bill Belichick suddenly became their coach and general manager. So if they have to play with Morency maybe they'll be 6-10 instead of 8-8. But even if had they re-signed Green, they'd still need a running back just as much as they do now. Time passes on in the NFL and Green's time has passed on to the point where he needed to be replaced. If it doesn't happen before next season, it might happen the year after. I know Packer fans desperately want some reasons for hope. Well, I've got a clue for you. When your best players are a 38-year old qb, Donald Driver and Aaron Kampman, you aren't winning a Super Bowl or going anywhere that matters. So there's no need to panic. The smart thing is to continue to try and build a contending team piece by piece.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike of Platteville - Hi Cliff! Get out riding any the last couple of days? I was surprised by the McGinn column about the Packers and Randy Moss--not about the fact that they're considering him, but that the team would admit publicly that they're considering fan sentiment. It strikes me that they're setting themselves up for future problems if they do that. Your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - You make an interesting point, but I think that has been common knowledge since the Lofton and Cade incidents. Even when Wolf signed some of his bad actors, my understanding is that there were always discussions about what the potential consequences might be. I'm guessing all teams do that. Then again, maybe I'm talking apples and you're talking oranges. I guess the question was: Are they letting fan sentiment dictate football decisions and is that something new? To be honest I don't know. That's why again, it's a good point on your part.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Realist Packer Fan of Anywhere in America - I'm not a nutso fan who ignores reality, but if the Packers have any chance at all to go deep into the playoffs, beating a weak NFC, why not take a shot at Randy Moss? I know you say that they lack the playmakers, and I find your analysis excellent, but there are occasionally opportunities to try things. What if Moss has something left in the tank; opening up the field would make Driver and Jennings far more effective, and help any running back they have. If the Pack can get a good running back (and I'm not convinced a junior like Lynch coming out of college is that guy this year), tighten up on defense, they have a shot to do just that--go deep in the playoffs. I'm not being a dreamer here--suppose the Bears lose a player or two to injury, a couple of other things happen to other teams. The Pack could be in it. I know you say "If worms had hips..." and all, and you're right, but this is likely the last chance. If they can somehow get to the Super Bowl, even though they'd be an underdog to anybody, why not? And finally, I know the odds of all this happening are low, but what chance do they have if they don't try something? Zero!
A: Cliff Christl - I see nothing wrong with signing Moss if they don't have to part with a high draft pick and mortgage the future. And I can't imagine that he couldn't still be productive. But I also can't imagine the Packers getting to the Super Bowl even with Moss. Again, if you're best players are Favre, Moss, Driver and Kampman that's not good enough. Now, if their No. 1 pick emerges as their best player and one of the best players in the NFC; and Hawk does the same, then they might have a chance. But do really think that's going to happen? How many 16th picks have had an instant impact?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Helsinki Hannah of Helsinki - Clifford: Do you think guys like Carroll Dale or Boyd Dowler could start on a modern day NFL team?
A: Cliff Christl - Dale could run, so I'd yes, for sure. I think Dowler would maybe be like a Drew Bennett. Don't forget, both Dowler and Bennett were college quarterbacks at big programs. So they also have similar backgrounds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff of Chicago - Cliff - I would never second-guess or question personnel decisions, but one recent transaction has me puzzled. I thought signing FB Griffin from Atlanta was a slam-dunk. Same system, young, good hands, position of need and a red zone threat (from what I have gathered). I could understand if he was signed away for ridiculous money, but he signed for 3-years and a little over $3 million. Other than thinking that a fullback is a dime a dozen and can be played by any stiff out there, what do you think Thompson's reasons were for not pursuing his signing harder (maybe he didn't want to go to GB?).
A: Cliff Christl - That fullbacks are a dime a dozen and have almost no bearing on a team's record. Brandon Miree, Justin Griffith. That's like picking between a car in one junkyard and another car in another junkyard next door. Just getting rid of Henderson is a step in the right direction. They'll at least have some young blood at the position.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mark of Geneva, FL - Cliff: Happy for you to hear of your impending retirement, but sad for us - is there anyone there to fill your large, crotchety & indifferent shoes? Have fun, Mark
A: Cliff Christl - What did Ron Wolf say about people who think they're irreplaceable? Cemeteries are filled with them. The Journal Co.prospered before they hired me. I'm confident they'll prosper after I leave. So I don't think they have big shoes to fill. Now, will they be able to find someone as crotchety? That might present at least a small challenge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: David of Baltimore - Hello Mr. Christl, Being the GM for the Green Bay Packers must be one of the easiest jobs in the world. At least according to a large number of Packer fans. All you have to do is watch a bunch of football games on TV, overpay for mediocre free agents and read where the so called, "Draft Experts" rank college players coming out for the draft and it's on to the Super Bowl. You don't even need to quit your regular full time job. I don't know why GM's get paid millions of dollars to build and run football teams/franchises. Good luck on your retirement.
A: Cliff Christl - Thanks. There are yardbirds out there who think building a Super Bowl winner is no different than putting together a championship Fantasy Football team. But based on the feedback I get, I also think there are plenty of astute fans who know the score, recognize the challenge that Thompson faces and have enough patience to realize that everything doesn't have to come together tomorrow. And I think there are more of those fans than we sometimes realize. They just aren't as loud as the ones who rant and rave about everything. I realize the New England Patriots have won three Super Bowls in the past six years. It can be done. But the Patriots didn't win any over the first 35 years following the NFL-AFL merger. Nor did they win any league titles in their first 10 years of existence in the old AFL. So they were somewhat overdue. The reality is that with 32 teams, if you win a Super Bowl every 32 years, you're keeping pace with the percentages. And a general manager can't lose sight of that. Every one of them knows that they're not going to get 32 years to build a champion. But they also know you can't build one overnight. And the worst thing you can do is to panic and stray from the blueprint by which almost every NFL champion has been built: More often than not gradually and always through the draft. Now, at some point, I think Thompson will have to make some bold move to try and get over the hump and maybe even just to buy himself some time. And I may write my column about that next week. It might be that Thompson will even do that before next season. Again, there are six months to go before the opener. But I'm not sure now is the time. Whatever, I understand why some fans think he should be doing more now. But there's also something to be said for someone who isn't just spending money foolishly in an effort to try and save his own neck and perhaps jeopardizing the franchise's long-term prospects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Granger of Simsbury - Cliff its going to be rough without you. I think its a shame that the internet was not invented earlier in your career, because the give and take you have with the packer fans has been truly unique. And if I know you at all I realize my post will not see the light of day without a Packers question. Would you trade Darren Colledge or Greg Jennings for Moss? I don't understand why the value of a 2nd round selection carries the amount of value the Packers, and other teams seem to place on it...Also Deion Branch went for a 1st. You yourself have pointed out how hard it is to find a special player below the top 5 players taken. Don't you stand a better chance that a truly special player gets his act back together than you do taking a flyer in the 2nd round?
A: Cliff Christl - No I wouldn't trade Colledge or Jennings for Moss. Why? To finish somewhere between 6-10 and 9-7 next year? As I stated earlier, I find it hard to believe that Moss has lost it completely. But he hasn't done much for two years. Last year, he caught 42 passes for 553 yards and two TDs. We're all fooling ourselves, and I include myself, if we don't realize that there might be a 50-50 chance that he'll be no more productive next year and that he might even be less productive because he'll be a year older. The truth is that nobody knows what the Packers will be getting with Moss other than that you won't be getting the Moss of three, four, five, six years ago. You might still be getting an explosive player, but that's an if and a sizeable if. Why wouldn't you trade a second when the chances of hitting on a superstar in the second round are so small? Well, LeRoy Butler was a second-round pick in 1990. Six years later, the Packers won a Super Bowl. Would they have won it without Butler? Maybe, but maybe not. Again, that's why I'm impressed with Thompson's patience and why I think he at least has a chance to succeed in a job that I don't think anybody would have had much of chance to succeed in short-term. And by short term, I'm talking four, five, six years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: TN of Lima - I think the Packers should trade Aaron Rogers for draft picks; for example, 2nd and third round picks. They can draft another QB in the draft! Aaron Roger don't seem to be that great QB that can take a team on his back like Favre!
A: Cliff Christl - I have my doubts about Rodgers as well, but I'm not sure you could get a second and third for him at this point. No. 1, he hasn't played and he hasn't been impressive in the pre-season. No surprise there, but I'm sure it affects his value. No. 2, he was drafted 24th. That pick is worth 740 points. Thus, you probably couldn't get high second- and third-round picks. Choices 33 and 65 are worth a combined 845 points. That said, the last two picks in each of those rounds are worth a combined 386. But would it be worth it to give up a quarterback that you drafted No. 1, invested two years in and feel has a chance to be a solid starter for mid to late second- and third-round picks if some other team still places a No. 24 value on Rodgers? I don't know. Players are like new cars. As soon as you take them off the lot, they still have the same value to you, but less value to everyone else -- at least until they prove that they're something special. I don't think I would make the trade as long as the Packers think Rodgers has a chance to succeed. He's not going to be a Favre. But if he could be another Matt Hasselbeck; that's not great, but that's not bad. And I think there's a chance that Rodgers could reach that level. We'll see.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ty Van Harpen of Milwaukee - Hey Cliff, I appreciate your chats as always. I am probably the only content Packer fan in WI right now. You have talked about playmakers and I am with you. Wouldn't you agree though in today's world with the big cap that you have to draft playmakers..? I feel the conflict though, believe me, I am the biggest Favre fan there is but we have to do what makes sense. We are rebuilding and our legend is retiring..it's tough. Couldn't we be frugal right now and patient and concentrate on the draft..? And if Randy Moss came at a reasonable price great... if not let it go.. I just think things can change in a hurry and patience is a smart thing to have with where we are as a team. The landscape can change quick with us getting a Marshawn Lynch in the draft and Moss at the right price after all the big money is spent. And if we don't land any free agents we still are not contending next year anyway. Another solid year of drafting will go a long way....patience Packer backers.... What are your thoughts Cliff..???
A: Cliff Christl - There are no shortcuts. In the last question, I noted that I thought Rodgers could maybe be as good as Hasselbeck. But don't forget that Hasselbeck didn't play for two years and didn't blossom until his fifth year. So, say, Rodgers follows the same schedule. That means he'd finally qualify as a good quarterback by year 2009. Maybe that's part of Thompson's vision. Maybe he feels he can stay competitive with Favre for a year or two here, and maybe he's shooting to try and win something in '09. If that's part of his thinking, it makes some sense. To me, it makes more sense than this pipedream that if the Packers trade for Moss and draft Lynch that they'll be heading to the Super Bowl. I don't see it happening. Thanks for the questions. The plan is to do this again next week.
Q: Tim Mannchen of Savage MN - I have no question, Cliff. Just my best wishes for an enjoyable and healthy retirement. I will miss your insight, thoroughness, and the effort you put into your work. I have been reading the Journal-Sentinel for 35+ years now and there are few writers whose work always drew me to the paper. You have been one and Jay Reed was another. Two very talented guys with perspectives and viewpoints that deserve a respectful hearing. Well done! You will be missed. Respectfully, Tim Mannchen
A: Cliff Christl - Tim, you posted first other than someone who asked the same question that I answered last week or the week before. So we'll start with you even though I hope to stick mostly with football on this chat. Thanks for the kind words, but the late Lloyd Bentsen would look me in the eye and rightfully say, "You're no Jay Reed." Jay Reed was one of the most talented and down-to-earth people I've ever worked with in this business. I'm not a hunter. I'm not a fisherman. But I'd read Jay sometimes when I had absolutely no interest in the subject, just because he was that good. For those of you unfamiliar with Jay, he was the old outdoor writer for the Milwaukee Journal when I joined the paper.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ken of Chesterfield, MI - Cliff, I'm going to miss your straight-forward, totally objective columns and chats. (Maybe on your last workday, you can tell us if you were secretly a fan of the Packers all along.) You said you have an extensive library collection at home. Will you be writing a career memoir, be a guest columnist, change careers or ride your bike off into the sunset? Again, you are the primary reason I subscribe to Packer Insider. (Have a great retirement.)
A: Cliff Christl - I'm going to take some time to decide what I want to do, although some books might be in the plans. For sure, I'll be riding that bike off into the sunset. And there will be no secret confessions about being a closet fan. I know some of you don't believe it. But I don't care if they win or lose and I don't think that will change in retirement. I'll let you in on this little secret. In 1989 and '90, I covered the Brewers. That was my beat and I covered some 120 or more baseball games each of those seasons. And during the fall, the Brewers often played on Sunday afternoon at the same time as the Packers. And when the Brewers were at home, at County Stadium, a lot of the media contingent would be standing in the back room keeping one eye on the Packers' game on TV and one eye on the Brewers. On one particular Sunday, Tracy Ringolsby, the longtime baseball writer, asked me why I never even poked my head in once during an entire game to see how the Packers were doing. I told him I had no interest. Baseball was my beat and I sunk all my energy into that job and really didn't pay attention to the Packers for those two years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff Helminiak of Kenai - I could not find your original column where you advocated trading Favre for a second-round pick last year. What were the reasons this would be a good idea? Financially, it doesn't make much difference because the Packers are so far under the cap and because Favre is a brand name that generates tons of revenue for the franchise. On the field, at least this past year, Favre still had a lot of worth. He's no Brady or Manning anymore. At the same time, the offense had very little talent besides Favre and still finished in the top 10 in yards gained. He also provided a great deal of the intangibles Parcells talks about being so important to the quarterback position. Favre is the only thing protecting the Packers from a great crash right now. Thompson is just buying time to upgrade the roster, to give Hawk (or somebody unexpected) time to develop into a difference maker, and to get Rodgers developed into a solid starter. Either these things will happen by the time Favre retires (or suffers great decline as a player) and the Packers will be decent, or these things won't and the Packers will crash. What difference does a second-round pick make in this whole scenario?
A: Cliff Christl - What if that second-round draft pick turned out to be another Larry Allen, or a Tiki Barber, or a Michael Strahan or even a Brett Favre? The goal in the NFL is to win the Super Bowl. That should be the only objective every time that a team makes a personnel move. What chance did the Packers have of winning a Super Bowl after Favre hit 35 or 36? How much brighter would their prospects be if they had beaten the odds and drafted a player with truly special talents in the second round?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mr. Know-It-All of Lunatic Fringe, WI - Hello Cliff and congrats on your pending retirement. My condolences to Mrs. C (if there is one) on having to put up with more of you around the house. Looks like Tightwad Ted is in rare form again this year, sitting on $20+M of cap room when he has plenty of holes to fill on the team - especially after the loss of Green. My question is this, if one subscribes to the CC "Playmaker" theory, then isn't it unwise for TT to draw lines in the sand over the cost of free agents? Should they not, as you noted with Charles Woodson last year, be paying whatever price the market demands for the top level of free agents available, since those are supposedly the ones who have the most impact on wins and losses? The Packers will never run out of cash, because their waiting list for tickets is so long. So why leave cap dollars on the table when there's at least a chance to significantly upgrade 2-3 positions on your team? This, in turn would allow you the most flexibility to draft the best available player, rather than having to decide between leaving a hole unfilled or drafting for need, another virtue that you often preach in this forum. Now that you're on your way to retirement, please give us your honest take on how TT is doing as GM, and a prediction on his future in Green Bay. No more straddling the fence -please give us the real deal - especially since you won't have to be around to take the heat for it. On a side note, I have enjoyed the weekly break these chats have given me the past couple years, even if we didn't see eye to eye. I appreciate the ability to vent after the games, and the fact that you've taken the time to offer this outlet to the fans, moreso than your JSO colleagues. You may come across as a grumpy old windbag, but your work ethic is undeniable. Best wishes for a happy and healthy retirement in the future.
A: Cliff Christl - I think it's a pretty simple answer. Most teams that spend money in free agency don't improve. In fact, they often drop in the standings. Why is that? Because you don't get better with 28-, 29- and 30-plus year old players that other teams don't want. Can you plug holes and find a few competent starters as stopgaps at your weakest positions? Sure. But there's only a few teams that I've seen gain from that and that's because all the other pieces were in place to make a run for the Super Bowl. Those teams' best players were young and their own draft picks. But even then, the last two Super Bowl winners -- the Colts and Steelers -- had almost no free agent starters, at least of any worth. I keep reading fan mail in the local papers from people howling about Thompson's inactivity in free agency and it's comical. You can tell these people are just clueless about the impact free agents have had in the past and what kind of value these players have in general. There weren't more than a handful of truly above average players in this year's entire free agent class. Why? Because if they're above average, teams aren't going to let them go. They'll put a franchise or transition tag on them. One other point on free agency. I think one of the reasons that teams often get worse when they jump into free agency is that they not only get older, which isn't good, but they limit opportunities for young players who might develop. That's still the only school of thought in the NFL: That the key to success is drafting and developing your own players. Even the teams that spend more than the Packers believe that. As for Ted Thompson, I have no strong opinion either way. I guess I'm not as smart as some fans. I think he faced a monumental challenge when he took the job. I think the odds of him succeeding are slim. Let's face it, the Packers won for like 13, 14 years in a row for one reason: Brett Favre. He essentially carried the franchise and made a lot of very average players look a lot better than they were. And you don't replace legends. Once Favre retires, I'm guessing that it is going to take a minimum of 10 years and probably more like 25 to 50 or more to find a quarterback in the same league, not necessarily one even as good or better. So, I guess if I was a betting man I'd say Thompson will fail as a GM. But I don't think there was anybody in the entire league who would have succeeded in his place. Almost every franchise in the history of the league, after a sustained period of success, has crashed. So far, Thompson has prevented a crash. I give him credit for that and I think he's looking out for the best long-term interests of the franchise. If you knew your Packers' history, you'd know what damage a desperate GM could cause. People ask: Why did it take the Packers 25 years after the Lombardi Era to field another champion? The answer probably starts with Dan Devine. So be thankful Thompson isn't out spending money foolishly and putting the franchise in cap peril to the point where it might take another four, five years to rebuild on top of the four, five it's going to take anyway. But it will be interesting to see if the Packers crash after Favre retires or if Thompson can keep them competitive, which may or may not be a good thing. In closing, thanks for the kind wishes and the best to you. I enjoy a good give-and-take and truly appreciate those who disagree but still read what I write. That's a nice compliment, maybe the ultimate compliment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave B. of Iowa City - Cliff, on the draft pick chart that you mention a lot, what is the difference in points between the Pack's #16 and the Chargers # 30 this year? Word on the street is that the Chargers are willing to deal Michael Turner, who played collegiately at Northern Illinois, and averaged 6.3 yards per carry last year with 7 out of 80 going for 20+ yards. The Packers could potentially swap picks with the Chargers in exchange for Turner, and still pick one spot ahead of the Bears. They could still get one of the two deep threat tight ends (Olsen or Miller) or another receiver, as well as an NFL ready, playmaking RB. The Chargers would be able to slide up and get a much better receiver, which they desperately need, than they otherwise would at number 30. Does this deal make sense according to the chart numbers, or are the Packers giving up too much or too little?
A: Cliff Christl - Good question. And I can't imagine why the Packers wouldn't have some interest in Turner. He hasn't been a featured back and that should be a concern, but he's also just 25 years old. What's the difference between the 16th and 30th picks? The 16th is worth 1,000 points. The 30th is worth 620. I don't know what kind of value the Chargers or Packers would place on Turner. His current contract status and his willingness to do a long-term deal with a new team would have a bearing on that. But that's at least a trade that might make some sense. And, again, that's another reason why Thompson might be wise for not spending a bunch of money in free agency. It might allow him the opportunity to trade for a player such as Turner and sign him to a long-term deal. Again, I would hope most fans are at least smart enough to realize that Thompson has a nice resume, works hard and knows football. I know some fans can't see any farther than the end of their nose. But take my word for it, somebody in Thompson's position is going to have a plan mapped out to try and win a Super Bowl. He's not just sitting up in his office counting quarters to see if he can pile his $20 million of cap money up to the roof of the Atrium. At least be smart enough to give him credit for that. His plan might fail, but almost all GMs and coaches in the NFL ultimately get fired in the end because their plan fails.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jamie E. of Milwaukee of thee Wisconsin - Cliff, at this point, I think we can all agree on the "playmaker" and "effective impact of free agency" theories. One theory I have been floating around, and I apologize, I have yet to fully research prior to posting to you was the "coaching pedigree theory". On average, coaches within the professional ranks that win championships have been exposed championship coaching either on a college or professional level. Stotts even though they have the same amount of years as head coaches. Looking at football, Lombardi got his start with the Army program when it was a powerhouse. Bill Walsh started with Dan Rourke, and though they had a negative split, worked under Paul Brown for some years. Walsh spawned Seifert who spawned Pete Carroll, and Holmgren who spawned Gruden and Reid. Parcells spawned Belichick. Lovie Smith was under Mike Martz and Tony Dungy. Tony Dungy played on the Steel Curtain for Chuck Knoll. I can go on and on. The exceptions are what I call "self-starters". Those are head coaches, at least through my brief research, I couldn't find a significant track record with a championship team as a player or coach on any level. Bill Parcells would fall under this category. Jimmy Johnson would to prior to Miami, but he won at Miami prior to winning with the Cowboys. But the "self-starters" are few and far between in this era. It's like a team winning the Super Bowl without a Hall of Fame-caliber QB. It's possible, but it's rare. So my conclusion is that on average, it takes a combination of the "playmaker theory" and "coaching pedigree theory" to win a championship title. Basically, if a head coach has never been exposed to championship winning as a player or head coach at least in the college or pro levels, then their odds are championship success us lower than those who have. I can even apply it to the NBA with Pat Riley once playing for Adolph Rupp, Avery Johnson winning a ring under Greg Popovich, Phil Jackson played on the Knicks championship team, etc. Wonder why Terry Stotts seems over his head? Check his resume.
A: Cliff Christl - Thanks. You're coming around. I would agree wholeheartedly that coaching plays a big role and maybe even a bigger role today. And I give you credit for presenting a strong case just based on knowledge you've gleaned following the game. You've even stumped me on something. Who was Dan Rourke? I know Walsh worked for Marv Levy at Cal, John Ralston at Stanford, Al Davis briefly and Tommy Prothro with the Chargers, as well as Paul Brown. But Dan Rourke? Anyway, I agree that pedigree is important. At the same time, look what happened at all of Vince Lombardi's assistants and former players. They all pretty much failed: Bengtson, Bill Austin, Norb Hecker, Tom Fears, Starr, Gregg. Also, I think most coaches who have climbed the professional ladder worked under a winner somewhere along the line or they wouldn't have continued to keep getting promotions. Mike McCarthy didn't work under successful coaches in New Orleans and San Francisco, but I'm sure the time he spent under Marty Schottenheimer has continued to pay dividends and helped get him to where he's at now. All that said, Pete Carroll hasn't done much in two stints in the pros. Belichick was a losing coach until he lucked out and drafted Tom Brady in the sixth round. I thought Joe Gibbs was the closest thing there was to Vince Lombardi in his first go-around in Washington and now he can't win a thing. Tony Dungy won a Super Bowl in Indy, but couldn't in Tampa Bay. Parcells won two with the Giants, but struck out with three other teams. I think the key is this: Most successful coaches have a system that they stick to, know what kind of players they need for that system and have the ability to develop them to be effective in that system. For example, no matter where John Elway played, I think he would have been a great quarterback. He was so talented that he probably could have succeeded under any coach in any system. On the other hand, I don't think you could say the same about Joe Montana. He didn't have the strongest arm. If he had been drafted by a vertical passing team, which the Packers were when they passed on him, I doubt if he would have had the same kind of career. That's where a Bill Walsh makes a difference. He knew what he needed in a quarterback and figured Montana could grow in his system. That's why so many free agents play well with one team and bomb out with another. They might fit one system, but not another.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: M V Doege of Minocqua - Cliff: What is your opinion on scheduling games abroad? I am definitely not in favor of giving up a Home Game to another location.
A: Cliff Christl - No strong opinion either way. Maybe someone has the foresight that the NFL is going to expand into foreign cities at some point and this will help lay the groundwork. There were people in the NFL in the late '40s, early '50s who thought TV would ruin the game. If you read their quotes now, they sound like fools. So I'm not going to second-guess someone who might have more vision than I have.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Joel of Milwaukee - Ted Thompson can't honestly think he's taking things to the next level with Vernand Morency and Arliss Beach, can he??? This team needs a running back.
A: Cliff Christl - No offense, but I think you're stating the obvious. And do you really think Ted Thompson is blind to the obvious? It's mid-March. The season doesn't start for six months. Ahman Green might have been the best back available in free agency and he's closing in on becoming a has-been. So what should Thompson have done? Just sign somebody to sign someone. I don't know if I've used this term since I was a kid. But my suggestion would be: Don't get your undies in a bundle. How many fans did that last year when Thompson didn't sign a kicker in free agency to replace Longwell. Yet it didn't matter and the fact that they don't have a back any better than Morency at this point doesn't matter. After saying all that, it might turn out that Morency will be the featured back next year. So what? The Packers aren't going to win anything next year. They wouldn't win anything next year if Bill Belichick suddenly became their coach and general manager. So if they have to play with Morency maybe they'll be 6-10 instead of 8-8. But even if had they re-signed Green, they'd still need a running back just as much as they do now. Time passes on in the NFL and Green's time has passed on to the point where he needed to be replaced. If it doesn't happen before next season, it might happen the year after. I know Packer fans desperately want some reasons for hope. Well, I've got a clue for you. When your best players are a 38-year old qb, Donald Driver and Aaron Kampman, you aren't winning a Super Bowl or going anywhere that matters. So there's no need to panic. The smart thing is to continue to try and build a contending team piece by piece.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike of Platteville - Hi Cliff! Get out riding any the last couple of days? I was surprised by the McGinn column about the Packers and Randy Moss--not about the fact that they're considering him, but that the team would admit publicly that they're considering fan sentiment. It strikes me that they're setting themselves up for future problems if they do that. Your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - You make an interesting point, but I think that has been common knowledge since the Lofton and Cade incidents. Even when Wolf signed some of his bad actors, my understanding is that there were always discussions about what the potential consequences might be. I'm guessing all teams do that. Then again, maybe I'm talking apples and you're talking oranges. I guess the question was: Are they letting fan sentiment dictate football decisions and is that something new? To be honest I don't know. That's why again, it's a good point on your part.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Realist Packer Fan of Anywhere in America - I'm not a nutso fan who ignores reality, but if the Packers have any chance at all to go deep into the playoffs, beating a weak NFC, why not take a shot at Randy Moss? I know you say that they lack the playmakers, and I find your analysis excellent, but there are occasionally opportunities to try things. What if Moss has something left in the tank; opening up the field would make Driver and Jennings far more effective, and help any running back they have. If the Pack can get a good running back (and I'm not convinced a junior like Lynch coming out of college is that guy this year), tighten up on defense, they have a shot to do just that--go deep in the playoffs. I'm not being a dreamer here--suppose the Bears lose a player or two to injury, a couple of other things happen to other teams. The Pack could be in it. I know you say "If worms had hips..." and all, and you're right, but this is likely the last chance. If they can somehow get to the Super Bowl, even though they'd be an underdog to anybody, why not? And finally, I know the odds of all this happening are low, but what chance do they have if they don't try something? Zero!
A: Cliff Christl - I see nothing wrong with signing Moss if they don't have to part with a high draft pick and mortgage the future. And I can't imagine that he couldn't still be productive. But I also can't imagine the Packers getting to the Super Bowl even with Moss. Again, if you're best players are Favre, Moss, Driver and Kampman that's not good enough. Now, if their No. 1 pick emerges as their best player and one of the best players in the NFC; and Hawk does the same, then they might have a chance. But do really think that's going to happen? How many 16th picks have had an instant impact?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Helsinki Hannah of Helsinki - Clifford: Do you think guys like Carroll Dale or Boyd Dowler could start on a modern day NFL team?
A: Cliff Christl - Dale could run, so I'd yes, for sure. I think Dowler would maybe be like a Drew Bennett. Don't forget, both Dowler and Bennett were college quarterbacks at big programs. So they also have similar backgrounds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff of Chicago - Cliff - I would never second-guess or question personnel decisions, but one recent transaction has me puzzled. I thought signing FB Griffin from Atlanta was a slam-dunk. Same system, young, good hands, position of need and a red zone threat (from what I have gathered). I could understand if he was signed away for ridiculous money, but he signed for 3-years and a little over $3 million. Other than thinking that a fullback is a dime a dozen and can be played by any stiff out there, what do you think Thompson's reasons were for not pursuing his signing harder (maybe he didn't want to go to GB?).
A: Cliff Christl - That fullbacks are a dime a dozen and have almost no bearing on a team's record. Brandon Miree, Justin Griffith. That's like picking between a car in one junkyard and another car in another junkyard next door. Just getting rid of Henderson is a step in the right direction. They'll at least have some young blood at the position.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mark of Geneva, FL - Cliff: Happy for you to hear of your impending retirement, but sad for us - is there anyone there to fill your large, crotchety & indifferent shoes? Have fun, Mark
A: Cliff Christl - What did Ron Wolf say about people who think they're irreplaceable? Cemeteries are filled with them. The Journal Co.prospered before they hired me. I'm confident they'll prosper after I leave. So I don't think they have big shoes to fill. Now, will they be able to find someone as crotchety? That might present at least a small challenge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: David of Baltimore - Hello Mr. Christl, Being the GM for the Green Bay Packers must be one of the easiest jobs in the world. At least according to a large number of Packer fans. All you have to do is watch a bunch of football games on TV, overpay for mediocre free agents and read where the so called, "Draft Experts" rank college players coming out for the draft and it's on to the Super Bowl. You don't even need to quit your regular full time job. I don't know why GM's get paid millions of dollars to build and run football teams/franchises. Good luck on your retirement.
A: Cliff Christl - Thanks. There are yardbirds out there who think building a Super Bowl winner is no different than putting together a championship Fantasy Football team. But based on the feedback I get, I also think there are plenty of astute fans who know the score, recognize the challenge that Thompson faces and have enough patience to realize that everything doesn't have to come together tomorrow. And I think there are more of those fans than we sometimes realize. They just aren't as loud as the ones who rant and rave about everything. I realize the New England Patriots have won three Super Bowls in the past six years. It can be done. But the Patriots didn't win any over the first 35 years following the NFL-AFL merger. Nor did they win any league titles in their first 10 years of existence in the old AFL. So they were somewhat overdue. The reality is that with 32 teams, if you win a Super Bowl every 32 years, you're keeping pace with the percentages. And a general manager can't lose sight of that. Every one of them knows that they're not going to get 32 years to build a champion. But they also know you can't build one overnight. And the worst thing you can do is to panic and stray from the blueprint by which almost every NFL champion has been built: More often than not gradually and always through the draft. Now, at some point, I think Thompson will have to make some bold move to try and get over the hump and maybe even just to buy himself some time. And I may write my column about that next week. It might be that Thompson will even do that before next season. Again, there are six months to go before the opener. But I'm not sure now is the time. Whatever, I understand why some fans think he should be doing more now. But there's also something to be said for someone who isn't just spending money foolishly in an effort to try and save his own neck and perhaps jeopardizing the franchise's long-term prospects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Granger of Simsbury - Cliff its going to be rough without you. I think its a shame that the internet was not invented earlier in your career, because the give and take you have with the packer fans has been truly unique. And if I know you at all I realize my post will not see the light of day without a Packers question. Would you trade Darren Colledge or Greg Jennings for Moss? I don't understand why the value of a 2nd round selection carries the amount of value the Packers, and other teams seem to place on it...Also Deion Branch went for a 1st. You yourself have pointed out how hard it is to find a special player below the top 5 players taken. Don't you stand a better chance that a truly special player gets his act back together than you do taking a flyer in the 2nd round?
A: Cliff Christl - No I wouldn't trade Colledge or Jennings for Moss. Why? To finish somewhere between 6-10 and 9-7 next year? As I stated earlier, I find it hard to believe that Moss has lost it completely. But he hasn't done much for two years. Last year, he caught 42 passes for 553 yards and two TDs. We're all fooling ourselves, and I include myself, if we don't realize that there might be a 50-50 chance that he'll be no more productive next year and that he might even be less productive because he'll be a year older. The truth is that nobody knows what the Packers will be getting with Moss other than that you won't be getting the Moss of three, four, five, six years ago. You might still be getting an explosive player, but that's an if and a sizeable if. Why wouldn't you trade a second when the chances of hitting on a superstar in the second round are so small? Well, LeRoy Butler was a second-round pick in 1990. Six years later, the Packers won a Super Bowl. Would they have won it without Butler? Maybe, but maybe not. Again, that's why I'm impressed with Thompson's patience and why I think he at least has a chance to succeed in a job that I don't think anybody would have had much of chance to succeed in short-term. And by short term, I'm talking four, five, six years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: TN of Lima - I think the Packers should trade Aaron Rogers for draft picks; for example, 2nd and third round picks. They can draft another QB in the draft! Aaron Roger don't seem to be that great QB that can take a team on his back like Favre!
A: Cliff Christl - I have my doubts about Rodgers as well, but I'm not sure you could get a second and third for him at this point. No. 1, he hasn't played and he hasn't been impressive in the pre-season. No surprise there, but I'm sure it affects his value. No. 2, he was drafted 24th. That pick is worth 740 points. Thus, you probably couldn't get high second- and third-round picks. Choices 33 and 65 are worth a combined 845 points. That said, the last two picks in each of those rounds are worth a combined 386. But would it be worth it to give up a quarterback that you drafted No. 1, invested two years in and feel has a chance to be a solid starter for mid to late second- and third-round picks if some other team still places a No. 24 value on Rodgers? I don't know. Players are like new cars. As soon as you take them off the lot, they still have the same value to you, but less value to everyone else -- at least until they prove that they're something special. I don't think I would make the trade as long as the Packers think Rodgers has a chance to succeed. He's not going to be a Favre. But if he could be another Matt Hasselbeck; that's not great, but that's not bad. And I think there's a chance that Rodgers could reach that level. We'll see.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ty Van Harpen of Milwaukee - Hey Cliff, I appreciate your chats as always. I am probably the only content Packer fan in WI right now. You have talked about playmakers and I am with you. Wouldn't you agree though in today's world with the big cap that you have to draft playmakers..? I feel the conflict though, believe me, I am the biggest Favre fan there is but we have to do what makes sense. We are rebuilding and our legend is retiring..it's tough. Couldn't we be frugal right now and patient and concentrate on the draft..? And if Randy Moss came at a reasonable price great... if not let it go.. I just think things can change in a hurry and patience is a smart thing to have with where we are as a team. The landscape can change quick with us getting a Marshawn Lynch in the draft and Moss at the right price after all the big money is spent. And if we don't land any free agents we still are not contending next year anyway. Another solid year of drafting will go a long way....patience Packer backers.... What are your thoughts Cliff..???
A: Cliff Christl - There are no shortcuts. In the last question, I noted that I thought Rodgers could maybe be as good as Hasselbeck. But don't forget that Hasselbeck didn't play for two years and didn't blossom until his fifth year. So, say, Rodgers follows the same schedule. That means he'd finally qualify as a good quarterback by year 2009. Maybe that's part of Thompson's vision. Maybe he feels he can stay competitive with Favre for a year or two here, and maybe he's shooting to try and win something in '09. If that's part of his thinking, it makes some sense. To me, it makes more sense than this pipedream that if the Packers trade for Moss and draft Lynch that they'll be heading to the Super Bowl. I don't see it happening. Thanks for the questions. The plan is to do this again next week.