K-town
04-26-2006, 07:19 PM
Q: Chris of Vegas - Hey Cliff... If the Packers get Woodson, Walker comes back and they get Williams or Hawk in the draft, considering their very-weak schedule, why shouldn't they be the top contender to make the playoffs in the nfc north?
A: Cliff Christl - Chris, you were the first to post a question, so we'll start with you. My answer would be short and simple: Because the Bears have a younger, better team, particularly on defense. But I'll give you this. Right now, the Packers clearly have the best quarterback in the division and the importance of that shouldn't be minimized.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: bosco of plover - cliff Sports illustrated reported a list of All-time best first-rounder by each draft slot. For example the best 1st pick was john elway. # 3 pick was butkus etc. No big surprise there. What points out how far talent drops in the draft is that the best ever 29th pick was the packers George Teague in 1993. To me he ranked as one of the most disappointing picks
A: Cliff Christl - He was a mediocre player at best. I don't have all the No. 29 picks in front of me. And I can't believe there wasn't somebody better than Teague. Maybe SI was just counting the No. 29 picks that also were first-round selections. And I believe '93 was the first time the 29th pick was part of the first round. So maybe they were working off a short list. But, that said, it goes to show how sharply the talent level drops in the first round. That's why the top three, four, five picks are so valued. That's also why I find it so comical when fans criticize Mike Sherman for his selection of Nick Barnett. All they'd have to do is look at a list of the other picks in that spot to realize what a stupid argument they're presenting. In fact, Barnett was a 29th pick. And I'd say that he's already shown that he's a better player than Teague.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Adam of Columbia - Hey Cliff. I've been reading some reports saying that Bronco WR Ashley Lelie is potential trade bait with the draft fast approaching. With Javon Walker's situation in Green Bay, and Denver's previous interest in Walker, what would the possibility be of a Walker and Lelie swap?(possibly draft pics included) Both WRs were first round picks and Lelie fits the fast, 'big' WR body wanted by McCarthy at 6'3" 200 lbs. Any comments or inside information?
A: Cliff Christl - Maybe it's a possibility. I don't know what Lelie's contract status is, but that would factor into the talks. Lelie has been a disappointment in Denver, but he also was a first-round pick and he's not coming off an ACL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Stoch of Amherst - Cliff, I have not done the research but I seem to remember that the Packers lost more than a few games last year because the defense collapsed. I realize that this can be the result of the offense not holding onto the ball but it could just be that when push came to shove the defesne folded. Do you think that this might explain the emphasis on defense in the offseason? Might it mean that more defensive players might be taken on Saturday?
A: Cliff Christl - No question, they needed to bolster their defense. It wasn't nearly as good as its No. 7 ranking would suggest. And that certainly factored into the Packers' quest of Pickett, Manuel, etc. But I don't think it portends that they'll be drafting defense Saturday. Maybe they signed more defensive free agents so they can concentrate on offense in the draft. Then again, Ted Thompson sounds as though as he's committed to taking the best players, regardless of position.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike Gisel of Davenport, IA - With Favre committed to playing in 2006, Do you think this increases our chances of getting Woodson to come to Green Bay?
A: Cliff Christl - Possibly. The Packers probably look better on paper now to Woodson. But money essentially will determine where he signs. I agree that Woodson is worth pursuing and maybe worth paying slightly more than market value to get. But he's damaged goods to an extent and he'll be 30 years old this season. There's a lot of risk there. So if he turns out to be another Joe Johnson are all those fans who are clamoring for Thompson to sign Woodson going to give Thompson a pass if that's how it all turns out?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Brett of Milwaukee - At this point, I don't care if we go 12-4 or 4-12, I'm just glad I get to watch Brett Favre for (at least) one more year. Maybe this delays the inevitable rebuilding process for another year or two-- so what?? A guy like Favre comes along once in a lifetime. Viva la Favre!
A: Cliff Christl - You're probably not alone. But I still think the Packers would have been better off trading him if they could have gotten at least a No. 2 in return.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jay of Connecticut - Hypothetical: 1. Packers draft Vernon Davis; 2. Packers sign Charles Woodson or some other springtime salary cap casualty to solidify the secondary; 3. Ahman Green stays reasonably healthy and he and Gato combine to provide a serviceable running game; 4. Packers get some near-term help out of this draft in the 2nd and 3rd rounds (perhaps on OL or WR); and 5. Javon Walker shows up, even just to play out his current contract and sign elsewhere next year. If these pieces fall into place, does this team have a shot at the playoffs? I know this isn't a blueprint for long-term success, but I don't see anything here that figures to mortgage the future.
A: Cliff Christl - Sure, they'd have a shot at the playoffs. But, again, if a worm had hips, he'd wear six guns and shoot the birds out of trees. How many times does a team go into a season with five ifs and everything comes together? That might be how fairy tales unfold, but it's not usually a realistic expectation in the NFL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Terry of Chicago - Cliff, I don't care what Thompson says, now that Favre is coming back no way does he draft a QB @ No. 5. That would really hurt the team and they have so many other needs. Plus, they are already grooming Rodgers. Anyway, what are you hearing on them drafting the TE Davis? Or is Hawk likely their guy?
A: Cliff Christl - I think it would be a mistake for Thompson to base any draft day decision on Favre's return. I still think Young is an intriguing prospect. I think Cutler is an intriguing prospect. I doubt that the Packers will draft either one. But, again, at some point soon, they'll have to replace Favre. And as John Madden told me once, the hardest time to find a quarterback is when you don't have one. And as I've pointed out, it can take 40, 50 years to find one. So I repeat, you never ever pass on a quarterback that you think can lead you to a Super Bowl, unless maybe you have a Peyton Manning or Tom Brady on your roster and still in their prime.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Kevin Kopp of Chippewa Falls - Cliff- I am starting to wonder if the Packers won't go offense in this draft for three reasons. One Favre is back, Mc Carthy is an offensive coach we need offensive weapons (i.e.- Walker situation, Driver is 31,etc). Second reason, Ferguson might fall to us and I know tackle is a strength but I think we find a way to get Clifton, Tauscher and Ferguson on the field at the same time. Then our o-line becomes a strength again and not a weakness. Now for the third reason, the more I read about this TE Vernon Davis the more I am intrigued by him. I know we have Bubba and Donald Lee has looked good but can you afford to pass this guy up? It appears as though Super Mario is gone and I love A.J. Hawk's pedigree but I don't see him having the upside of either of these guys. Your thoughts? Y
A: Cliff Christl - I think there's a good chance they'll go offense. Ferguson might be a possibility simply because he's the best player on the board. I think Davis is a possibility. But I don't think you can discount Hawk, either. I still find it hard to believe that Mario Williams will be there at No. 5. I realize there are some flaws in his game, but I can't see a defensive end with his measurables and production being bypassed by four teams.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Prime Time of Kimberly - What type of software do the Packers use to prepare for the draft. Are there any mathematical formulas used to determine the value of players and picks?
A: Cliff Christl - I don't know what kind of software I use. I'm a technical dunce, dinosaur, whatever you want to call me. But I'm sure the Packers have all that stuff on computer and the same goes for the other 31 teams. With all the man hours and money that goes into the draft, NFL teams don't overlook much.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bill of Whiting, NJ - Cliff. TT has demonstrated he will stick to his guns, and not over pay in free agency. But it could be argued "all the players are over payed, as is our GM." The problem by not "over paying," is TT has signed nobody of significance. This year's team looks weaker than last year's team. You can stand around all day talking about how much money you saved, and all you have is a bag full of money to show for it. Frankly, I would have loved to hig go after Larry Allen from Dallas. Why should Packer fans believe that TT is going to enter 2006 with anything more than a vault full of cash? Secondly, why should Packer's believe this guy is doing anything better than any other schmuck would do. Thus far his fee agent signings in 2005 and 2006 have been awful, and his 2005 draft was anything but spectacular; especially with the loss of Murphy. There is much talk about TT following Wolf's model, but Wolf signed free agents Reggie White, Keith Jackson, Sean Jones and Santana Dotson, if I am not mistaken. Not a bad haul. The only hope I have, is that he is going to follow the New England model, whom I believed signed about 20 middle of the road free agents, mostly after June 1st and went on to win a Super Bowl. Do you think with all the holes the Packers have, TT is going to invest heavilly after the June 1st salary cap cuts? He can't possibly plan on fixing all the holes with the draft.
A: Cliff Christl - Wolf signed free agents to fill in the final pieces of the puzzle after assembling a contender largely through the Favre trade, but also the draft and waiver claims. The Packers aren't at the point where they need only a few final pieces. As for Keith Jackson, he was a trade acquisition. As for the Patriots, they relied on a few key free agents, notably Rodney Harrison, but they were built through the draft. In fact, that has been true of just about every Super Bowl winner in history. Just once, I'd like someone on this chat to cite examples of free agents that have panned out and put their teams over the top; and teams that have relied more on free agents than draft picks to win Super Bowls. It seems to me that the teams that spend the most money in free agency -- Washington, Minnesota, among them -- never win anything. So why do so many fans want Thompson to jump into the free agent market and overspend for players? So they can all criticize him for the mistakes he'll make?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: mike of milwaukee - cliff, thanks for the chat. Now that Favre has returned, what do you think the chances are that Green Bay takes Vernon Davis over A.J. Hawk or Mario Williams(if he is still there)?
A: Cliff Christl - Hawk is the popular choice for Green Bay on many mock drafts. SI's Paul Zimmerman, who does his homework, has the Packers taking Hawk. And Hawk may well be their pick. I think he's one of the safest picks in the draft and someone who is going to be a very good player for many years. But will he be a huge impact player? He played on the weak side at Ohio State and was a playmaker. He has outstanding speed. But he's 6-1. If the Packers draft him to be a weak-side backer, how effective will he be as a blitzer? If they draft Hawk to play inside, where many project him, will he be that much more stout than Barnett in the running game? Will he be able to beat out Barnett in the dime? If not, he'll be a one- or two-down player. Not many linebackers run and close as well as Barnett. If the Packers believe Hawk has the playmaking ability to be another Urlacher, he'd be a good choice. I'm not sure Hawk is that kind of athlete. On the other hand, I think Vernon Davis might be one of the best athletes ever at his position. And he'd give the Packers a big-play threat at receiver; and I don't think it really matters that he's a tight end, not a wide receiver. Based solely on past experiences covering the draft, I think teams tend to pick the great athletes early. That's why I think the Packers might take Davis over Hawk. But it also wouldn't shock me if Davis doesn't make it to No. 5. I think he'll be there. But here's something I haven't seen any speculation over, but wonder about. Drew Brees, New Orleans' new qb, was average at best at San Diego in his first two seasons as a starter. His passer ratings were 76.9 and 67.5. He threw more interceptions than TDs. Then Antonio Gates bursts on the scene in 2003 and Brees' rating skyrockets to 104.8. I realize Mario Williams and D'Brickashaw Ferguson would both fit needs for the Saints, but what about Davis? I think if there's a likely trade, it's the Jets and Saints trading positions with the Saints possibly taking Davis at No. 4. Maybe I'm in a minority of one thinking that, but the Saints have invested so much in Brees and he's been at his best only when he's had a top-notch tight end to throw to. Again, I don't think Williams will last to No. 5. Teams don't usually pass on defensive ends with better measurables than Reggie White.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ron of Grafton - Cliff Young slips down to 5. The Packers draft him. TT admits Rogers is a mistake, and takes the cap hit. Now, hopefully, Favre's sucessor is in place. Wild speculation I admit. Hey, I won't lose my job if I'm wrong.
A: Cliff Christl - If Thompson wants to make a splash with his No. 1 pick, he'd make a huge one by taking Young. It would take guts to draft Young. He could be a bust. But if Young turns out to be a great quarterback and wins Super Bowls, every team that passes on him will come to regret it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jan Mandel of Phoenix Az. - Your article about giving McCarthy a chance now hit several key points and was right on the mark. True you can't guarantee anything will be better than next year, but if i was a player lining up and looking at who was going to QB my team and give me the best chance to win..and see either Rodgers or Farve..I'd think you'd have to be a moron to not want Farve back. Want to know value and what you've got...put Farve on the open market and see what happens.
A: Cliff Christl - I agree about your comparison between Favre and Rodgers. I know some fans were ready to move on and see whether Rodgers has got it or not. And their argument is that the sooner the Packers learn about Rodgers the better. But keep this in mind. If quarterbacks aren't ready and they endure tough times, it can ruin their confidence and their careers. I think that was a big part of Joey Harrington's problem in Detroit. He might have been a better quarterback his first year than his last year. There are some scouts who are still puzzled by his collapse. But, obviously, some teams believe they can rescue his career. Nick Saban must be in that camp. THe problem in Detroit was that Harrington lost the confidence of his teammates and his own confidence. The same thing could have happened to Rodgers if he had been forced into the lineup last season. Or it could just as easily happen in '06 if he has to play.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jim Martin of Bellevue, Nebraska - Dear Cliff, The life of a journalist-you get called in yesterday on what I presume was your day off. Thanks again for all the chats-they are great. Now that the Favre saga is over, we can pay attention to what is going on with rebuilding the team. As you have mentioned in the past, and despite other pundits suggestions, do you believe that Thompson has been wise with free agency? It would seem that he has held back millions in preparation to be able to woo some pretty solid players that will be cut lose in June, July, and August, while other teams will be financially strapped. I know that such players would not be differnce makers, but simply upgrades or "stepping stones" as Wolf used to call them. If Thompson can do this, and the Packers can get an impact player this weekend, I think they will be considerably more competitive than predicted-as you've said in the past, oftentimes one player makes the difference. I'm not a pollyanna: I would say 10-6 would be about the absolute best this team could achieve. But, if they were to draft Vernon Davis, and he's a good as advertised, that's probably 7-10 TDs we couldn't get last year. Your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - I agree with you. Thompson's chances of landing an impact player Saturday are infinitely better than they were in free agency. Jim, you seem to have an understanding of that. Again, fans who don't, send me a list of free agents since '93 other than Reggie White who have been impact players for their new teams? Some fans act as though Woodson and Arrington were going to be cure-alls just because they recognized the names. Well, if they're going to be impact players, why did they last so long in free agency? Don't get me wrong. There are good, solid players available in free agency every year. But free agent signings aren't going to turn around a team that's in the midst of rebuilding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Granger of Simsbury, CT - Hey Crusty Cliff enjoy your effort! Which current Packer backups stand a chance of being decent NFL starters?
A: Cliff Christl - Stand a good chance? Or stand a chance? Any young player with decent athletic ability has a chance. Coston, White, Barry, Leach, Gardner, Gado, even Peterson and Washington all have a chance. That's why you see so many players fail with one team and make it with their second, third or fourth team. Some players take longer to develop. Some fit certain systems better than others. That's why I think waiver claims and/or the street free agent process are more important than free agency for rebuilding teams. That's how Wolf acquired Gilbert Brown and Hentrich. Thompson got off to a good start when he signed Samkon Gado. If I wanted to be an astute fan, I'd be paying closer attention to that than what free agents Thompson has signed. The Packers could very well get more mileage out of Gado than the New York Giants will out of Arrington or some team will out of Woodson. I'm not saying it's going to happen. But it could happen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Andrew of Los Angeles - Now that Brett is coming back, why not draft stud TE Davis? He will be instant offense and will keep opposing defense honest,as contrast to drafting a QB (say Vince Young). Also, Young is a boom-or-bust pick but I think he will be just an ordinary but flashy QB (ie Vick and Culpepper). Also, Young's low wonderlic is a red flag. If I remember it right back then, Sherman tried to defend Javon Walker's low wonderlic score - see where Walker is now with his not so smart brain. I think if Thompson has any clue and not trying to be cute, he will draft Davis & give Favre a weapon.
A: Cliff Christl - The identity of the No 5 pick will likely reveal a lot about Thompson's philosophy. As he prepares for Favre's retirement does he believe he'll be better off building a good defense first, similar to the Bears? If so, Hawk might be the pick. If he thinks it's more important to get playmakers, regardless of position, Davis might be the pick. If he's of the belief that you can't win without a quarterback, he might gamble on Young, although I don't think that's a likely scenario. Does he prefer good big men to good small men, a philosophy that most personnel people subscribed to when it was still more a running game than a passing game, then he might jump at the chance to get Ferguson if he's still there. How much risk is Thompson willing to take? Or does he prefer to play it safe? Again, the answer might come when he either drafts or passes on Hawk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: JJ of Arlington, VA - With the loss of Murphy, a second round pick, the second year of no or little on field value from Rodgers, 1st round pick, the potential loss for less value of Walker, first round pick, and the failure to "sign your own players" in Wahle, second round supplemental pick, (regardless of cap tightness a restructure of some kind should have been done). Do you think that Thompson has dug himself a deep hole as GM from which he may never recover. You talk about impact players and where to find them, but right out of the shoot he has lost two he had and didn't pick up any help in the last draft from the impact picks. I am starting to feel as pessimistic as you in looking at the potential talent trough out there in two years that will be worse than this year.
A: Cliff Christl - Based on my count, the Packers haven't lost any impact players yet under Thompson. Walker would be one, but he's still property of the Packers. Wahle is not an impact player. He's a very good player, but the only two guards that I've ever seen that could maybe be classified as impact players were John Hannah and Larry Allen. And I don't know how you fault Thompson for Murphy's injury. That said, I think Thompson's biggest mistake so far was letting Wahle go. And the Rodgers' pick will surpass it as his biggest blunder if Rodgers doesn't pan out. But the jury is still out. I really don't know how anyone can judge a GM after one year on the job. Now, if Thompson blows the No. 5 pick and Rodgers doesn't cut it as a quarterback, I'd say he may be doomed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Chad of Minneapolis - I'm trying to figure out a scenario how Favre's return speeds up a return to the playoffs, but can't come up with anything? Any ideas?
A: Cliff Christl - If the Packers' No. 5 pick turns out to be a rookie of the year candidate and the No. 2 pick becomes a solid starter next year, the Packers would have a shot at the playoffs. If you want to know what kind of impact two rookies can have on a team go back and research the 1972 Packers. Or how much impact one rookie can have? Look at Tampa Bay. Thanks basically to one player, actually the fifth pick in the draft, they improved from 5-11 to 11-5 in one season. When you start talking about the important 'ifs' here: If Woodson signs, if this, if that. The most important if is the No. 5 pick. It could make a difference of two to five games in the standings next year, as well as accelerate or slow down the rebuilding process by two, three years or more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: tk of orange - Ok, the drama re retirement is over, now what? Favre must really "love the game" because the offense is in worse shape than last year. No middle of the O-line, no upgrade in receivers, running backs returning from serious injuries? What is there to look forward to? What should the Packers focus on in this draft(1) a strong defense that keeps the other team off the field and doesn't "force" Favre to win every game; or (2) a strong offense which will score alot of points and be in every game no matter how many points the opponents score?
A: Cliff Christl - The best player.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Shane of Mankato, MN - I know you believe that Ted Thompson is doing the right thing by building almost exclusively through the draft and I know you believe that Thompson doesn't need to consult players, including Favre, as to how he goes about putting the team together. However, in this day and age, when teams' fortunes change from season to season, when losing teams become winning teams almost overnight, what would have been wrong with trying to get the absolute best out of Favre's final years? Maybe the Packers should have treated him like a coveted UFA as he pondered retirement. Maybe they should have filled him in on their plans, tried to get a two-year committment out of him in February before free agency began, and really pursued some of the pieces -- offensive linemen, running back, hell, even Terrell Owens -- Brett and the Packers needed to try to go out on top. Now, you're right, the Redskins' wild spending and the Vikings' recent dive into free agency haven't exactly worked, but those teams don't have Favre. That's a big, big difference. He's the X factor that Thompson doesn't seem to realize he had and now has for another year as he puts his team together.
A: Cliff Christl - First of all, teams don't get better overnight. That's absurd. The teams that have jumped from the depths to the top of the NFL have done so after several years of drafting early in the first round. The Bears didn't get better overnight last season. They jumped six games in the win column because they had been drafting early for about eight years. The same with the Rams when they won their Super Bowl. The same with the Bengals of recent years. Tampa Bay improved six games last year because of Cadillac Williams. Name me one free agent ever that had that much impact, where his team improved six games in one year almost solely because of him. Also, I don't think I've ever written that Thompson is "doing the right thing by building almost exclusively through the draft." You're twisting my words. I've written that should be his primary focus. But you can't build a winning team in the NFL using only one of the available avenues to procuring players. A GM needs to use the waiver system or sign street free agents. Thompson did that when he signed Gado. He signed two undrafted rookies last year who made the roster: Manning and White. A GM needs to explore trade opportunities, although not many come along anymore. He needs to sign free agents. Thompson has done that. He signed Pickett, Manuel and a couple others this off-season. But he doesn't need to go out and spend money foolishly on overpriced free agents who, for the most part, wouldn't be free agents if they were really that good. He doesn't need to appease the yahoo fans who know nothing about players other than that they recognize some names and not others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jay of San Diego - Hi Cliff: If we assume/guess all things are equal between two likely candidates for the Packers' first round pick, Hawk and Vernon Davis, does Favre's return potentially sway Thompson to pick Davis? Personally, I'd like to see Davis be the pick anyway, as it will only make it easier for whomever ultimately replaces Favre, just like Drew Brees suddenly went from barely hanging onto his job to an upper-echelon QB upon the arrival of Antonio Gates here in San Diego.
A: Cliff Christl - If the debate was between Hawk and Davis, it might influence the choice. I assume that Thompson and McCarthy are hoping that Favre will have a big year and play beyond 2006. And for that to happen, he'll need weapons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ed of Columbus, OH - Hi Cliff, I am really happy about Favre returning. What I don't agree with is this notion sometimes expressed about a team being better off in the future if it loses now. I admit that there seems to be a certain logic to it, better draft choices et al, however it just doesn't seem to work that way in reality. (Consider recent examples like the 49ers and Chicago Bulls in basketball). How long have Detroit and Chicago been "rebuilding?" Two 1995 expansion teams have won more playoff games than them, (and teams rebuilding since then like Arizona, New Orleans, Cinncinatti, Buffalo, and Cleveland). What are your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - I agree with you totally. I've written that it can be best to bottom out before embarking on a rebuilding program. But I don't believe that you gain anything from trying to lose now rather than down the road. There's a difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ryan of New Berlin - Cliff, Thanks for your unbiased opionion on all things Packers. My question is whether the Packers would be better off signing Charles Woodson or acquiring Ashley Lelie versus drafting a CB/DS or WR in the draft. I know that the draft is "thin" for WR and there is the question of long term good vs short term, but our roster is in need of a talent upgrade regardless of the source. Thanks for your insight.
A: Cliff Christl - I agree to this extent. It's not a deep wide receiver class, so even in the second round there might not be good value there. And there probably aren't any corners worth taking at 5. And if there's a run on corners late in the first round, they may be picked over by the second round. So those are needs the Packers might have to try to fill elsewhere. But that won't be easily done, especially at cornerback. Quality corners are scarce.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Phil Bleile of Hudson - Cliff, thanks again for the chat and answering my e-mails. Do you believe there is any chance Favre could maybe swallow some pride and sit down with Walker and say he shouldn't have said what he said (although I do agree with him) so the Packers have a chance this year?
A: Cliff Christl - I don't know and I don't know if it would do any good. In a recent column in SI, Rick Reilly listed 46 unwritten rules in sports. He made no mention of not criticizing a fellow player for not fulfilling his contract. I think Walker and a few of his cronies made that one up. So if I was Favre, I wouldn't apologize.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave of Milwaukee - Cliff, Favre has made a decision the draft has been chatted to death. So I want to know your opinion on the chances that McCarthy and his staff will get some help from players already on the roster that Sherman either overrated or could not pull out their potential. A player like David Martin, for example. Or Robert Ferguson. Or Jason Horton. Or Ahmad Carroll. Or Donell Washington. I think you get my point.
A: Cliff Christl - Tough call. I don't think you can blame Sherman for those players not developing. It's up to the player. A coach can do only so much.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jim S. of Racine - Cliff, I remember watching the draft on ESPN a year ago and watching Aaron Rodgers slipping down to the Packer's pick. The commentators said that the Pack "had to" pick Rodgers because, as I understand it, he was too good a value to pass up at pick 24. Do you think that was true?
A: Cliff Christl - I can't answer that. But if I were you, I wouldn't pay much attention to most of the commentators on ESPN. What do they know? Some study film and work at their jobs. I pay attention to what they say. I'd put Ron Jaworski and Merril Hoge in that class. Maybe a couple others. But most of them don't know. That's why I'm not going to tell you that I think the Packers should draft this player or this player and not that player or that player; or criticize or praise their pick when they make it. One, I'm not a scout. I'm not a coach. The same goes for almost all the draftniks. I don't think most of them know anything about football. Also, even those pundits who might have an eye for talent don't spend nearly the time watching film and evaluating players that people in the game do. Think about it for a second. Ted Thompson spends almost the entire year preparing for the draft. He has numerous scouts and coaches who assist him in the process, most of whom coached or played the game. But there are some draftniks and columnists, almost all of whom never played or coached a game of football, that have been cast in positions where their job is to analyze or criticize Thompson's picks. And everybody else's for that matter. What sense does that make? First of all, I can't believe some of my peers and the likes of Mel Kiper are that vain that they'd think they know more than people in the game. And next, I can't believe there are suckers who actually place any stock in what those people say. Anyone can criticize a draft pick and stand a good chance of being right. After all, the draft is a crapshoot. But, personally, I think it would be stupid for me or anyone else who isn't a working scout or coach to criticize a pick. Or even to praise one for that matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave of Fairchild AFB, WA - Cliff, so many columnists seem to have concluded that TT will draft Hawk in the first round. Why? Is he really that much of an upgrade over Barnett, and how often will Hawk and Barnett actually be on the field together, assuming that Barnett is moved to OLB? Maybe I'm missing something, but it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The team has glaring needs all over the field, so wouldn't it be better to add somebody who will be a bigger upgrade, like Vernon Davis?
A: Cliff Christl - All valid questions. Again, we don't know which one is going to be a better player. But that's why my guess is that, of the two, Davis is the more likely to be the pick. Then again, maybe the Packers see Hawk as an every down player, someone they can build a defense around, someone that has the same kind of range and playmaking ability as Urlacher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jon Erkkila of Apple Valley, MN - Cliff, I'm happy Favre is coming back...its been a pleasure to watch him compete. My question is do you think the Javon Walker situation will make the selection of Vernon Davis more likely? Thank you.
A: Cliff Christl - If the Packers pick Davis, I think Walker's situation will be a consideration. They don't have a No. 1 receiver. They desperately need a playmaker on offense. So Davis would fit a need even though he's a tight end.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John of Milwaukee - Cliff, do you think it's an accident that Favre decided right before the draft to announce that he was coming back?
A: Cliff Christl - This just in: The Packers and Woodson have agreed to terms on a seven-year, $52 million deal. Maybe that's why Favre announced his decision yesterday. Maybe Woodson wanted a commitment from him before he signed. I'm just speculating there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Scott of Cedar Rapids - what are the chances Thompson trades the 5th pick for more picks?
A: Cliff Christl - Slim to none unless it's a team right behind them. The fifth pick is worth 1,700 points in the trade value system. As I've written many times, NFL teams value quality. They value high picks. The great players decide Super Bowls. The 1st pick in the draft, for example, is worth 3,000 points. So for the Packers to move up, they'd have to trade the fifth pick (1,700 points), their second-round pick (540 points), their third pick (255 points) their fourth pick (86 points), their fifth pick (36 1/2) and they'd still be almost 400 points short. That's why I laugh when people refer to it as 'My theory about playmakers and special players.' That's the mindset of almost everybody in the NFL. The No. 1 pick in the draft is worth more than the No. 5 team's complete list of selections. At the same time, the Packers' pick is worth almost 400 points more than the 10th pick. That's why it costs so much to move up and why the Packers probably don't want to move down, certainly anymore than one or two spots.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jrod of Buffalo of Buffalo,Mn - I have been coaching football for many years and it never ceases to amaze me how much one person can effect a sport where there are 22 individuals on the playing field at the same time. i.e. Favre (glad he is back) But I am referring to the #5 pick, if a difference maker of great potential is there, we must take him! Forget need, positions etc. Draft the guy who by himself propelled his team to greatness, Leinert, Young, etc. You mentioned this earlier Cliff, if the guy with the greatest chance of being a difference maker is still there you grab him! My question: Who is the biggest difference maker as you see it? Personally I think Hawk will be one of the difference makers as well, your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - I'm not going to argue with you about Hawk and I agree with your comments. But isn't Davis a better athlete and in position to make a bigger splash as an offensive skill player?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: RH of Texas - Cliff- One of the reasons I hate mock drafts by the sportswriters that try to do them is they all seem to have a "herd" mentality. One publication writes the first mock draft and then it just gets mindlessly repeated and then gets considered a fact. I can't find one mock draft anymore that lists anyone besides A.J. Hawk. He might be the pick but one of the reasons stated is he is the safest pick in the draft and Thompson is total caution in his approach thus will opt for the safe pick. But if we are picking 5th, shouldn't we be looking at a difference maker. In my know nothing opinion, it seems that at the top 5 pick level, you have three impact type home run types and that would be Mario Williams, Reggie Bush, and Vernon Davis. Taking Holliday over Moss seems to have been one of the biggest misses the Packers had, and this guy Davis in all likliehood will be available and coincidentally the receiving corp is a huge area of need. Davis could be a mega talent. How could we consider Hawk over any one of these three. Plus Davis could probably be one of those receivers who could prevent a Favre Pick when he throws into quadruple coverage and puts air under the ball at the same time and then you wouldn't have to be so creative in absolving Favre of a bad decision because Davis. So Davis would be good for the Packers, great for Favre, and would help your career out also in eliminating obvious bad passes that you have find excuses for. (I watched that Pick again and again against Tampa Bay and my only conclusion as to how you could pin that play on the TE is that you were doing a one on one interview with Ricky Williams and tested some of that holistic medicine he likes to use.) So would you take Davis or Hawk if you were making the call and do you think Thompson is so overlu cautios that he just couldn't get past not making the safe pick. Would Thompson's personality/style allow him to go for the big hit with the 5th pick?
A: Cliff Christl - Yes, there is a herd mentality in our business. That's why I read and listen to a few respected voices, those who have good sources and do their homework, and ignore 95% of the other mindless blather that's available on the internet, in newspapers and elsewhere. That's also why I try to avoid offering opinions about matters other than those that I've gleaned from history and past experiences. I know I don't always stay true to my intentions. I offer opinions about some things I probably shouldn't. But I'll be honest here. I'm in the dark about the Packers' pick. As I'm sure you all know, Ted Thompson is highly secretive. One scout told me he's one of those guys that might stand next to another scout on a practice field for an hour and never say a word, never make any small talk. But having closely followed the draft and having covered most of them for the past 30-plus years, my sense tells me that most teams would take the more athletic player at No. 5, i.e. Davis over Hawk. But I could be dead wrong in this case. Anyway, thanks for all your questions
A: Cliff Christl - Chris, you were the first to post a question, so we'll start with you. My answer would be short and simple: Because the Bears have a younger, better team, particularly on defense. But I'll give you this. Right now, the Packers clearly have the best quarterback in the division and the importance of that shouldn't be minimized.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: bosco of plover - cliff Sports illustrated reported a list of All-time best first-rounder by each draft slot. For example the best 1st pick was john elway. # 3 pick was butkus etc. No big surprise there. What points out how far talent drops in the draft is that the best ever 29th pick was the packers George Teague in 1993. To me he ranked as one of the most disappointing picks
A: Cliff Christl - He was a mediocre player at best. I don't have all the No. 29 picks in front of me. And I can't believe there wasn't somebody better than Teague. Maybe SI was just counting the No. 29 picks that also were first-round selections. And I believe '93 was the first time the 29th pick was part of the first round. So maybe they were working off a short list. But, that said, it goes to show how sharply the talent level drops in the first round. That's why the top three, four, five picks are so valued. That's also why I find it so comical when fans criticize Mike Sherman for his selection of Nick Barnett. All they'd have to do is look at a list of the other picks in that spot to realize what a stupid argument they're presenting. In fact, Barnett was a 29th pick. And I'd say that he's already shown that he's a better player than Teague.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Adam of Columbia - Hey Cliff. I've been reading some reports saying that Bronco WR Ashley Lelie is potential trade bait with the draft fast approaching. With Javon Walker's situation in Green Bay, and Denver's previous interest in Walker, what would the possibility be of a Walker and Lelie swap?(possibly draft pics included) Both WRs were first round picks and Lelie fits the fast, 'big' WR body wanted by McCarthy at 6'3" 200 lbs. Any comments or inside information?
A: Cliff Christl - Maybe it's a possibility. I don't know what Lelie's contract status is, but that would factor into the talks. Lelie has been a disappointment in Denver, but he also was a first-round pick and he's not coming off an ACL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Stoch of Amherst - Cliff, I have not done the research but I seem to remember that the Packers lost more than a few games last year because the defense collapsed. I realize that this can be the result of the offense not holding onto the ball but it could just be that when push came to shove the defesne folded. Do you think that this might explain the emphasis on defense in the offseason? Might it mean that more defensive players might be taken on Saturday?
A: Cliff Christl - No question, they needed to bolster their defense. It wasn't nearly as good as its No. 7 ranking would suggest. And that certainly factored into the Packers' quest of Pickett, Manuel, etc. But I don't think it portends that they'll be drafting defense Saturday. Maybe they signed more defensive free agents so they can concentrate on offense in the draft. Then again, Ted Thompson sounds as though as he's committed to taking the best players, regardless of position.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike Gisel of Davenport, IA - With Favre committed to playing in 2006, Do you think this increases our chances of getting Woodson to come to Green Bay?
A: Cliff Christl - Possibly. The Packers probably look better on paper now to Woodson. But money essentially will determine where he signs. I agree that Woodson is worth pursuing and maybe worth paying slightly more than market value to get. But he's damaged goods to an extent and he'll be 30 years old this season. There's a lot of risk there. So if he turns out to be another Joe Johnson are all those fans who are clamoring for Thompson to sign Woodson going to give Thompson a pass if that's how it all turns out?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Brett of Milwaukee - At this point, I don't care if we go 12-4 or 4-12, I'm just glad I get to watch Brett Favre for (at least) one more year. Maybe this delays the inevitable rebuilding process for another year or two-- so what?? A guy like Favre comes along once in a lifetime. Viva la Favre!
A: Cliff Christl - You're probably not alone. But I still think the Packers would have been better off trading him if they could have gotten at least a No. 2 in return.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jay of Connecticut - Hypothetical: 1. Packers draft Vernon Davis; 2. Packers sign Charles Woodson or some other springtime salary cap casualty to solidify the secondary; 3. Ahman Green stays reasonably healthy and he and Gato combine to provide a serviceable running game; 4. Packers get some near-term help out of this draft in the 2nd and 3rd rounds (perhaps on OL or WR); and 5. Javon Walker shows up, even just to play out his current contract and sign elsewhere next year. If these pieces fall into place, does this team have a shot at the playoffs? I know this isn't a blueprint for long-term success, but I don't see anything here that figures to mortgage the future.
A: Cliff Christl - Sure, they'd have a shot at the playoffs. But, again, if a worm had hips, he'd wear six guns and shoot the birds out of trees. How many times does a team go into a season with five ifs and everything comes together? That might be how fairy tales unfold, but it's not usually a realistic expectation in the NFL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Terry of Chicago - Cliff, I don't care what Thompson says, now that Favre is coming back no way does he draft a QB @ No. 5. That would really hurt the team and they have so many other needs. Plus, they are already grooming Rodgers. Anyway, what are you hearing on them drafting the TE Davis? Or is Hawk likely their guy?
A: Cliff Christl - I think it would be a mistake for Thompson to base any draft day decision on Favre's return. I still think Young is an intriguing prospect. I think Cutler is an intriguing prospect. I doubt that the Packers will draft either one. But, again, at some point soon, they'll have to replace Favre. And as John Madden told me once, the hardest time to find a quarterback is when you don't have one. And as I've pointed out, it can take 40, 50 years to find one. So I repeat, you never ever pass on a quarterback that you think can lead you to a Super Bowl, unless maybe you have a Peyton Manning or Tom Brady on your roster and still in their prime.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Kevin Kopp of Chippewa Falls - Cliff- I am starting to wonder if the Packers won't go offense in this draft for three reasons. One Favre is back, Mc Carthy is an offensive coach we need offensive weapons (i.e.- Walker situation, Driver is 31,etc). Second reason, Ferguson might fall to us and I know tackle is a strength but I think we find a way to get Clifton, Tauscher and Ferguson on the field at the same time. Then our o-line becomes a strength again and not a weakness. Now for the third reason, the more I read about this TE Vernon Davis the more I am intrigued by him. I know we have Bubba and Donald Lee has looked good but can you afford to pass this guy up? It appears as though Super Mario is gone and I love A.J. Hawk's pedigree but I don't see him having the upside of either of these guys. Your thoughts? Y
A: Cliff Christl - I think there's a good chance they'll go offense. Ferguson might be a possibility simply because he's the best player on the board. I think Davis is a possibility. But I don't think you can discount Hawk, either. I still find it hard to believe that Mario Williams will be there at No. 5. I realize there are some flaws in his game, but I can't see a defensive end with his measurables and production being bypassed by four teams.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Prime Time of Kimberly - What type of software do the Packers use to prepare for the draft. Are there any mathematical formulas used to determine the value of players and picks?
A: Cliff Christl - I don't know what kind of software I use. I'm a technical dunce, dinosaur, whatever you want to call me. But I'm sure the Packers have all that stuff on computer and the same goes for the other 31 teams. With all the man hours and money that goes into the draft, NFL teams don't overlook much.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bill of Whiting, NJ - Cliff. TT has demonstrated he will stick to his guns, and not over pay in free agency. But it could be argued "all the players are over payed, as is our GM." The problem by not "over paying," is TT has signed nobody of significance. This year's team looks weaker than last year's team. You can stand around all day talking about how much money you saved, and all you have is a bag full of money to show for it. Frankly, I would have loved to hig go after Larry Allen from Dallas. Why should Packer fans believe that TT is going to enter 2006 with anything more than a vault full of cash? Secondly, why should Packer's believe this guy is doing anything better than any other schmuck would do. Thus far his fee agent signings in 2005 and 2006 have been awful, and his 2005 draft was anything but spectacular; especially with the loss of Murphy. There is much talk about TT following Wolf's model, but Wolf signed free agents Reggie White, Keith Jackson, Sean Jones and Santana Dotson, if I am not mistaken. Not a bad haul. The only hope I have, is that he is going to follow the New England model, whom I believed signed about 20 middle of the road free agents, mostly after June 1st and went on to win a Super Bowl. Do you think with all the holes the Packers have, TT is going to invest heavilly after the June 1st salary cap cuts? He can't possibly plan on fixing all the holes with the draft.
A: Cliff Christl - Wolf signed free agents to fill in the final pieces of the puzzle after assembling a contender largely through the Favre trade, but also the draft and waiver claims. The Packers aren't at the point where they need only a few final pieces. As for Keith Jackson, he was a trade acquisition. As for the Patriots, they relied on a few key free agents, notably Rodney Harrison, but they were built through the draft. In fact, that has been true of just about every Super Bowl winner in history. Just once, I'd like someone on this chat to cite examples of free agents that have panned out and put their teams over the top; and teams that have relied more on free agents than draft picks to win Super Bowls. It seems to me that the teams that spend the most money in free agency -- Washington, Minnesota, among them -- never win anything. So why do so many fans want Thompson to jump into the free agent market and overspend for players? So they can all criticize him for the mistakes he'll make?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: mike of milwaukee - cliff, thanks for the chat. Now that Favre has returned, what do you think the chances are that Green Bay takes Vernon Davis over A.J. Hawk or Mario Williams(if he is still there)?
A: Cliff Christl - Hawk is the popular choice for Green Bay on many mock drafts. SI's Paul Zimmerman, who does his homework, has the Packers taking Hawk. And Hawk may well be their pick. I think he's one of the safest picks in the draft and someone who is going to be a very good player for many years. But will he be a huge impact player? He played on the weak side at Ohio State and was a playmaker. He has outstanding speed. But he's 6-1. If the Packers draft him to be a weak-side backer, how effective will he be as a blitzer? If they draft Hawk to play inside, where many project him, will he be that much more stout than Barnett in the running game? Will he be able to beat out Barnett in the dime? If not, he'll be a one- or two-down player. Not many linebackers run and close as well as Barnett. If the Packers believe Hawk has the playmaking ability to be another Urlacher, he'd be a good choice. I'm not sure Hawk is that kind of athlete. On the other hand, I think Vernon Davis might be one of the best athletes ever at his position. And he'd give the Packers a big-play threat at receiver; and I don't think it really matters that he's a tight end, not a wide receiver. Based solely on past experiences covering the draft, I think teams tend to pick the great athletes early. That's why I think the Packers might take Davis over Hawk. But it also wouldn't shock me if Davis doesn't make it to No. 5. I think he'll be there. But here's something I haven't seen any speculation over, but wonder about. Drew Brees, New Orleans' new qb, was average at best at San Diego in his first two seasons as a starter. His passer ratings were 76.9 and 67.5. He threw more interceptions than TDs. Then Antonio Gates bursts on the scene in 2003 and Brees' rating skyrockets to 104.8. I realize Mario Williams and D'Brickashaw Ferguson would both fit needs for the Saints, but what about Davis? I think if there's a likely trade, it's the Jets and Saints trading positions with the Saints possibly taking Davis at No. 4. Maybe I'm in a minority of one thinking that, but the Saints have invested so much in Brees and he's been at his best only when he's had a top-notch tight end to throw to. Again, I don't think Williams will last to No. 5. Teams don't usually pass on defensive ends with better measurables than Reggie White.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ron of Grafton - Cliff Young slips down to 5. The Packers draft him. TT admits Rogers is a mistake, and takes the cap hit. Now, hopefully, Favre's sucessor is in place. Wild speculation I admit. Hey, I won't lose my job if I'm wrong.
A: Cliff Christl - If Thompson wants to make a splash with his No. 1 pick, he'd make a huge one by taking Young. It would take guts to draft Young. He could be a bust. But if Young turns out to be a great quarterback and wins Super Bowls, every team that passes on him will come to regret it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jan Mandel of Phoenix Az. - Your article about giving McCarthy a chance now hit several key points and was right on the mark. True you can't guarantee anything will be better than next year, but if i was a player lining up and looking at who was going to QB my team and give me the best chance to win..and see either Rodgers or Farve..I'd think you'd have to be a moron to not want Farve back. Want to know value and what you've got...put Farve on the open market and see what happens.
A: Cliff Christl - I agree about your comparison between Favre and Rodgers. I know some fans were ready to move on and see whether Rodgers has got it or not. And their argument is that the sooner the Packers learn about Rodgers the better. But keep this in mind. If quarterbacks aren't ready and they endure tough times, it can ruin their confidence and their careers. I think that was a big part of Joey Harrington's problem in Detroit. He might have been a better quarterback his first year than his last year. There are some scouts who are still puzzled by his collapse. But, obviously, some teams believe they can rescue his career. Nick Saban must be in that camp. THe problem in Detroit was that Harrington lost the confidence of his teammates and his own confidence. The same thing could have happened to Rodgers if he had been forced into the lineup last season. Or it could just as easily happen in '06 if he has to play.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jim Martin of Bellevue, Nebraska - Dear Cliff, The life of a journalist-you get called in yesterday on what I presume was your day off. Thanks again for all the chats-they are great. Now that the Favre saga is over, we can pay attention to what is going on with rebuilding the team. As you have mentioned in the past, and despite other pundits suggestions, do you believe that Thompson has been wise with free agency? It would seem that he has held back millions in preparation to be able to woo some pretty solid players that will be cut lose in June, July, and August, while other teams will be financially strapped. I know that such players would not be differnce makers, but simply upgrades or "stepping stones" as Wolf used to call them. If Thompson can do this, and the Packers can get an impact player this weekend, I think they will be considerably more competitive than predicted-as you've said in the past, oftentimes one player makes the difference. I'm not a pollyanna: I would say 10-6 would be about the absolute best this team could achieve. But, if they were to draft Vernon Davis, and he's a good as advertised, that's probably 7-10 TDs we couldn't get last year. Your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - I agree with you. Thompson's chances of landing an impact player Saturday are infinitely better than they were in free agency. Jim, you seem to have an understanding of that. Again, fans who don't, send me a list of free agents since '93 other than Reggie White who have been impact players for their new teams? Some fans act as though Woodson and Arrington were going to be cure-alls just because they recognized the names. Well, if they're going to be impact players, why did they last so long in free agency? Don't get me wrong. There are good, solid players available in free agency every year. But free agent signings aren't going to turn around a team that's in the midst of rebuilding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Granger of Simsbury, CT - Hey Crusty Cliff enjoy your effort! Which current Packer backups stand a chance of being decent NFL starters?
A: Cliff Christl - Stand a good chance? Or stand a chance? Any young player with decent athletic ability has a chance. Coston, White, Barry, Leach, Gardner, Gado, even Peterson and Washington all have a chance. That's why you see so many players fail with one team and make it with their second, third or fourth team. Some players take longer to develop. Some fit certain systems better than others. That's why I think waiver claims and/or the street free agent process are more important than free agency for rebuilding teams. That's how Wolf acquired Gilbert Brown and Hentrich. Thompson got off to a good start when he signed Samkon Gado. If I wanted to be an astute fan, I'd be paying closer attention to that than what free agents Thompson has signed. The Packers could very well get more mileage out of Gado than the New York Giants will out of Arrington or some team will out of Woodson. I'm not saying it's going to happen. But it could happen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Andrew of Los Angeles - Now that Brett is coming back, why not draft stud TE Davis? He will be instant offense and will keep opposing defense honest,as contrast to drafting a QB (say Vince Young). Also, Young is a boom-or-bust pick but I think he will be just an ordinary but flashy QB (ie Vick and Culpepper). Also, Young's low wonderlic is a red flag. If I remember it right back then, Sherman tried to defend Javon Walker's low wonderlic score - see where Walker is now with his not so smart brain. I think if Thompson has any clue and not trying to be cute, he will draft Davis & give Favre a weapon.
A: Cliff Christl - The identity of the No 5 pick will likely reveal a lot about Thompson's philosophy. As he prepares for Favre's retirement does he believe he'll be better off building a good defense first, similar to the Bears? If so, Hawk might be the pick. If he thinks it's more important to get playmakers, regardless of position, Davis might be the pick. If he's of the belief that you can't win without a quarterback, he might gamble on Young, although I don't think that's a likely scenario. Does he prefer good big men to good small men, a philosophy that most personnel people subscribed to when it was still more a running game than a passing game, then he might jump at the chance to get Ferguson if he's still there. How much risk is Thompson willing to take? Or does he prefer to play it safe? Again, the answer might come when he either drafts or passes on Hawk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: JJ of Arlington, VA - With the loss of Murphy, a second round pick, the second year of no or little on field value from Rodgers, 1st round pick, the potential loss for less value of Walker, first round pick, and the failure to "sign your own players" in Wahle, second round supplemental pick, (regardless of cap tightness a restructure of some kind should have been done). Do you think that Thompson has dug himself a deep hole as GM from which he may never recover. You talk about impact players and where to find them, but right out of the shoot he has lost two he had and didn't pick up any help in the last draft from the impact picks. I am starting to feel as pessimistic as you in looking at the potential talent trough out there in two years that will be worse than this year.
A: Cliff Christl - Based on my count, the Packers haven't lost any impact players yet under Thompson. Walker would be one, but he's still property of the Packers. Wahle is not an impact player. He's a very good player, but the only two guards that I've ever seen that could maybe be classified as impact players were John Hannah and Larry Allen. And I don't know how you fault Thompson for Murphy's injury. That said, I think Thompson's biggest mistake so far was letting Wahle go. And the Rodgers' pick will surpass it as his biggest blunder if Rodgers doesn't pan out. But the jury is still out. I really don't know how anyone can judge a GM after one year on the job. Now, if Thompson blows the No. 5 pick and Rodgers doesn't cut it as a quarterback, I'd say he may be doomed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Chad of Minneapolis - I'm trying to figure out a scenario how Favre's return speeds up a return to the playoffs, but can't come up with anything? Any ideas?
A: Cliff Christl - If the Packers' No. 5 pick turns out to be a rookie of the year candidate and the No. 2 pick becomes a solid starter next year, the Packers would have a shot at the playoffs. If you want to know what kind of impact two rookies can have on a team go back and research the 1972 Packers. Or how much impact one rookie can have? Look at Tampa Bay. Thanks basically to one player, actually the fifth pick in the draft, they improved from 5-11 to 11-5 in one season. When you start talking about the important 'ifs' here: If Woodson signs, if this, if that. The most important if is the No. 5 pick. It could make a difference of two to five games in the standings next year, as well as accelerate or slow down the rebuilding process by two, three years or more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: tk of orange - Ok, the drama re retirement is over, now what? Favre must really "love the game" because the offense is in worse shape than last year. No middle of the O-line, no upgrade in receivers, running backs returning from serious injuries? What is there to look forward to? What should the Packers focus on in this draft(1) a strong defense that keeps the other team off the field and doesn't "force" Favre to win every game; or (2) a strong offense which will score alot of points and be in every game no matter how many points the opponents score?
A: Cliff Christl - The best player.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Shane of Mankato, MN - I know you believe that Ted Thompson is doing the right thing by building almost exclusively through the draft and I know you believe that Thompson doesn't need to consult players, including Favre, as to how he goes about putting the team together. However, in this day and age, when teams' fortunes change from season to season, when losing teams become winning teams almost overnight, what would have been wrong with trying to get the absolute best out of Favre's final years? Maybe the Packers should have treated him like a coveted UFA as he pondered retirement. Maybe they should have filled him in on their plans, tried to get a two-year committment out of him in February before free agency began, and really pursued some of the pieces -- offensive linemen, running back, hell, even Terrell Owens -- Brett and the Packers needed to try to go out on top. Now, you're right, the Redskins' wild spending and the Vikings' recent dive into free agency haven't exactly worked, but those teams don't have Favre. That's a big, big difference. He's the X factor that Thompson doesn't seem to realize he had and now has for another year as he puts his team together.
A: Cliff Christl - First of all, teams don't get better overnight. That's absurd. The teams that have jumped from the depths to the top of the NFL have done so after several years of drafting early in the first round. The Bears didn't get better overnight last season. They jumped six games in the win column because they had been drafting early for about eight years. The same with the Rams when they won their Super Bowl. The same with the Bengals of recent years. Tampa Bay improved six games last year because of Cadillac Williams. Name me one free agent ever that had that much impact, where his team improved six games in one year almost solely because of him. Also, I don't think I've ever written that Thompson is "doing the right thing by building almost exclusively through the draft." You're twisting my words. I've written that should be his primary focus. But you can't build a winning team in the NFL using only one of the available avenues to procuring players. A GM needs to use the waiver system or sign street free agents. Thompson did that when he signed Gado. He signed two undrafted rookies last year who made the roster: Manning and White. A GM needs to explore trade opportunities, although not many come along anymore. He needs to sign free agents. Thompson has done that. He signed Pickett, Manuel and a couple others this off-season. But he doesn't need to go out and spend money foolishly on overpriced free agents who, for the most part, wouldn't be free agents if they were really that good. He doesn't need to appease the yahoo fans who know nothing about players other than that they recognize some names and not others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jay of San Diego - Hi Cliff: If we assume/guess all things are equal between two likely candidates for the Packers' first round pick, Hawk and Vernon Davis, does Favre's return potentially sway Thompson to pick Davis? Personally, I'd like to see Davis be the pick anyway, as it will only make it easier for whomever ultimately replaces Favre, just like Drew Brees suddenly went from barely hanging onto his job to an upper-echelon QB upon the arrival of Antonio Gates here in San Diego.
A: Cliff Christl - If the debate was between Hawk and Davis, it might influence the choice. I assume that Thompson and McCarthy are hoping that Favre will have a big year and play beyond 2006. And for that to happen, he'll need weapons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ed of Columbus, OH - Hi Cliff, I am really happy about Favre returning. What I don't agree with is this notion sometimes expressed about a team being better off in the future if it loses now. I admit that there seems to be a certain logic to it, better draft choices et al, however it just doesn't seem to work that way in reality. (Consider recent examples like the 49ers and Chicago Bulls in basketball). How long have Detroit and Chicago been "rebuilding?" Two 1995 expansion teams have won more playoff games than them, (and teams rebuilding since then like Arizona, New Orleans, Cinncinatti, Buffalo, and Cleveland). What are your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - I agree with you totally. I've written that it can be best to bottom out before embarking on a rebuilding program. But I don't believe that you gain anything from trying to lose now rather than down the road. There's a difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ryan of New Berlin - Cliff, Thanks for your unbiased opionion on all things Packers. My question is whether the Packers would be better off signing Charles Woodson or acquiring Ashley Lelie versus drafting a CB/DS or WR in the draft. I know that the draft is "thin" for WR and there is the question of long term good vs short term, but our roster is in need of a talent upgrade regardless of the source. Thanks for your insight.
A: Cliff Christl - I agree to this extent. It's not a deep wide receiver class, so even in the second round there might not be good value there. And there probably aren't any corners worth taking at 5. And if there's a run on corners late in the first round, they may be picked over by the second round. So those are needs the Packers might have to try to fill elsewhere. But that won't be easily done, especially at cornerback. Quality corners are scarce.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Phil Bleile of Hudson - Cliff, thanks again for the chat and answering my e-mails. Do you believe there is any chance Favre could maybe swallow some pride and sit down with Walker and say he shouldn't have said what he said (although I do agree with him) so the Packers have a chance this year?
A: Cliff Christl - I don't know and I don't know if it would do any good. In a recent column in SI, Rick Reilly listed 46 unwritten rules in sports. He made no mention of not criticizing a fellow player for not fulfilling his contract. I think Walker and a few of his cronies made that one up. So if I was Favre, I wouldn't apologize.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave of Milwaukee - Cliff, Favre has made a decision the draft has been chatted to death. So I want to know your opinion on the chances that McCarthy and his staff will get some help from players already on the roster that Sherman either overrated or could not pull out their potential. A player like David Martin, for example. Or Robert Ferguson. Or Jason Horton. Or Ahmad Carroll. Or Donell Washington. I think you get my point.
A: Cliff Christl - Tough call. I don't think you can blame Sherman for those players not developing. It's up to the player. A coach can do only so much.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jim S. of Racine - Cliff, I remember watching the draft on ESPN a year ago and watching Aaron Rodgers slipping down to the Packer's pick. The commentators said that the Pack "had to" pick Rodgers because, as I understand it, he was too good a value to pass up at pick 24. Do you think that was true?
A: Cliff Christl - I can't answer that. But if I were you, I wouldn't pay much attention to most of the commentators on ESPN. What do they know? Some study film and work at their jobs. I pay attention to what they say. I'd put Ron Jaworski and Merril Hoge in that class. Maybe a couple others. But most of them don't know. That's why I'm not going to tell you that I think the Packers should draft this player or this player and not that player or that player; or criticize or praise their pick when they make it. One, I'm not a scout. I'm not a coach. The same goes for almost all the draftniks. I don't think most of them know anything about football. Also, even those pundits who might have an eye for talent don't spend nearly the time watching film and evaluating players that people in the game do. Think about it for a second. Ted Thompson spends almost the entire year preparing for the draft. He has numerous scouts and coaches who assist him in the process, most of whom coached or played the game. But there are some draftniks and columnists, almost all of whom never played or coached a game of football, that have been cast in positions where their job is to analyze or criticize Thompson's picks. And everybody else's for that matter. What sense does that make? First of all, I can't believe some of my peers and the likes of Mel Kiper are that vain that they'd think they know more than people in the game. And next, I can't believe there are suckers who actually place any stock in what those people say. Anyone can criticize a draft pick and stand a good chance of being right. After all, the draft is a crapshoot. But, personally, I think it would be stupid for me or anyone else who isn't a working scout or coach to criticize a pick. Or even to praise one for that matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave of Fairchild AFB, WA - Cliff, so many columnists seem to have concluded that TT will draft Hawk in the first round. Why? Is he really that much of an upgrade over Barnett, and how often will Hawk and Barnett actually be on the field together, assuming that Barnett is moved to OLB? Maybe I'm missing something, but it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The team has glaring needs all over the field, so wouldn't it be better to add somebody who will be a bigger upgrade, like Vernon Davis?
A: Cliff Christl - All valid questions. Again, we don't know which one is going to be a better player. But that's why my guess is that, of the two, Davis is the more likely to be the pick. Then again, maybe the Packers see Hawk as an every down player, someone they can build a defense around, someone that has the same kind of range and playmaking ability as Urlacher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jon Erkkila of Apple Valley, MN - Cliff, I'm happy Favre is coming back...its been a pleasure to watch him compete. My question is do you think the Javon Walker situation will make the selection of Vernon Davis more likely? Thank you.
A: Cliff Christl - If the Packers pick Davis, I think Walker's situation will be a consideration. They don't have a No. 1 receiver. They desperately need a playmaker on offense. So Davis would fit a need even though he's a tight end.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John of Milwaukee - Cliff, do you think it's an accident that Favre decided right before the draft to announce that he was coming back?
A: Cliff Christl - This just in: The Packers and Woodson have agreed to terms on a seven-year, $52 million deal. Maybe that's why Favre announced his decision yesterday. Maybe Woodson wanted a commitment from him before he signed. I'm just speculating there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Scott of Cedar Rapids - what are the chances Thompson trades the 5th pick for more picks?
A: Cliff Christl - Slim to none unless it's a team right behind them. The fifth pick is worth 1,700 points in the trade value system. As I've written many times, NFL teams value quality. They value high picks. The great players decide Super Bowls. The 1st pick in the draft, for example, is worth 3,000 points. So for the Packers to move up, they'd have to trade the fifth pick (1,700 points), their second-round pick (540 points), their third pick (255 points) their fourth pick (86 points), their fifth pick (36 1/2) and they'd still be almost 400 points short. That's why I laugh when people refer to it as 'My theory about playmakers and special players.' That's the mindset of almost everybody in the NFL. The No. 1 pick in the draft is worth more than the No. 5 team's complete list of selections. At the same time, the Packers' pick is worth almost 400 points more than the 10th pick. That's why it costs so much to move up and why the Packers probably don't want to move down, certainly anymore than one or two spots.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jrod of Buffalo of Buffalo,Mn - I have been coaching football for many years and it never ceases to amaze me how much one person can effect a sport where there are 22 individuals on the playing field at the same time. i.e. Favre (glad he is back) But I am referring to the #5 pick, if a difference maker of great potential is there, we must take him! Forget need, positions etc. Draft the guy who by himself propelled his team to greatness, Leinert, Young, etc. You mentioned this earlier Cliff, if the guy with the greatest chance of being a difference maker is still there you grab him! My question: Who is the biggest difference maker as you see it? Personally I think Hawk will be one of the difference makers as well, your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - I'm not going to argue with you about Hawk and I agree with your comments. But isn't Davis a better athlete and in position to make a bigger splash as an offensive skill player?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: RH of Texas - Cliff- One of the reasons I hate mock drafts by the sportswriters that try to do them is they all seem to have a "herd" mentality. One publication writes the first mock draft and then it just gets mindlessly repeated and then gets considered a fact. I can't find one mock draft anymore that lists anyone besides A.J. Hawk. He might be the pick but one of the reasons stated is he is the safest pick in the draft and Thompson is total caution in his approach thus will opt for the safe pick. But if we are picking 5th, shouldn't we be looking at a difference maker. In my know nothing opinion, it seems that at the top 5 pick level, you have three impact type home run types and that would be Mario Williams, Reggie Bush, and Vernon Davis. Taking Holliday over Moss seems to have been one of the biggest misses the Packers had, and this guy Davis in all likliehood will be available and coincidentally the receiving corp is a huge area of need. Davis could be a mega talent. How could we consider Hawk over any one of these three. Plus Davis could probably be one of those receivers who could prevent a Favre Pick when he throws into quadruple coverage and puts air under the ball at the same time and then you wouldn't have to be so creative in absolving Favre of a bad decision because Davis. So Davis would be good for the Packers, great for Favre, and would help your career out also in eliminating obvious bad passes that you have find excuses for. (I watched that Pick again and again against Tampa Bay and my only conclusion as to how you could pin that play on the TE is that you were doing a one on one interview with Ricky Williams and tested some of that holistic medicine he likes to use.) So would you take Davis or Hawk if you were making the call and do you think Thompson is so overlu cautios that he just couldn't get past not making the safe pick. Would Thompson's personality/style allow him to go for the big hit with the 5th pick?
A: Cliff Christl - Yes, there is a herd mentality in our business. That's why I read and listen to a few respected voices, those who have good sources and do their homework, and ignore 95% of the other mindless blather that's available on the internet, in newspapers and elsewhere. That's also why I try to avoid offering opinions about matters other than those that I've gleaned from history and past experiences. I know I don't always stay true to my intentions. I offer opinions about some things I probably shouldn't. But I'll be honest here. I'm in the dark about the Packers' pick. As I'm sure you all know, Ted Thompson is highly secretive. One scout told me he's one of those guys that might stand next to another scout on a practice field for an hour and never say a word, never make any small talk. But having closely followed the draft and having covered most of them for the past 30-plus years, my sense tells me that most teams would take the more athletic player at No. 5, i.e. Davis over Hawk. But I could be dead wrong in this case. Anyway, thanks for all your questions