motife
03-22-2007, 08:40 PM
Q: Dave of Saint Louis Park - Cliff, Given the success their mentor Ron Wolf had picking QB's 3rd--thru-7th rounds, and the advancing age of Favre, are you at all surprised that neither Sherman nor Thompson has done similarly? Yes, Aaron Rogers, but where they got him in the 1st they almost couldn't pass. Given how long you've stated it will likely take the Packers to find even a decent replacement for Favre, this seems an area that hasn't been aggressively pursued.
A: Cliff Christl - Dave, you posted the first question, we'll start with you. First, let me point out that Thompson has drafted a quarterback in each of his two drafts: Rodgers in 2005 and Ingle Martin in 2006. So I don't think you can criticize him. One of Sherman's mistakes was that he traded too many picks and that didn't leave him enough to draft a quarterback. But you make a good point. Years ago, I remember John Madden telling me the hardest time to find a quarterback is when you don't have one. I think that usually holds true for whatever reasons. And, yes, Wolf had some success in the mid to late rounds drafting quarterbacks -- when he didn't need one -- but only two have proven to be capable starters: Hasselbeck and Brunell at one time. That's still a pretty good percentage. In fact, it's an exceptional percentage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Greg benkowski of Omaha, Nebrasak - What is Brett Favre's opinion on the possibility of acquiring Randy Moss?
A: Cliff Christl - I don't know that Favre has said anything. Favre's agent, who also represented Moss at one time, has been lobbying for the trade. So I assume that means Favre likes the idea. Why wouldn't he? It might give him a better chance to win and might give him the best deep threat he's had, or at least second best to Javon Walker. Moss was exceptional at one time. I would be surprised if the Moss of today is better than the Javon Walker of 2003.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Paul of Viroqua, WI - Mr. Christl, let me say first that I enjoy your articles and will miss them greatly upon your retirement. Now, in regard to your article of 13 March "Here's The Evidence On How Great Players Win Super Bowls," I would like to offer my own opinion regarding "great players." Without a "very good" offensive line, fullback, and tight end, NO quarterback or halfback will ever be "great." Wide receivers is another story as their ability to get open, catch the ball, and take the ball from defenders is paramount in being considered a great receiver. An item I'm not quite clear on is whether Mr. Buchsbaum's ratings for those rating years you list were made before or after the year of the Super Bowl win. If it was made after someone had a great year I would suggest it's irrelevant as anyone can have an exceptional game/year then return to mediocrity. Though they didn't win the Super Bowl in 2001, the St. Louis Rams had six players on Mr. Buchsbaum's 2002 Top Fifty players list (Marshall Faulk rated # 1, Kurt Warner rated # 2, Aeneas Williams rated # 10th, Orlando Pace rated # 20, Terry Holt rated # 44, and Grant Wistrom rated # 50 and were 14 - 2 in 2001 but with the same six players on there roster in 2002 they finished 7 - 9. Therefore, with six players on Mr. Buchsbaum's Top Fifty list, the Cardinals couldn't even play .500 ball. I don't mean to demean your theory nor dismiss everything you say, I merely want to point out that nothing is etched in stone. You're a great writer and like any writer I'm sure you could make an equally strong case with the exact opposite conclusion of you 13 March article. A couple of other minor points I would like to address are: Johnny Unitas; using Unitas in your article is really apples and oranges, football in the Unitas era can't be compared to today's quarterbacks due to specialty players, the speed of the game, constant infusion of fresh legs in to the line, the pass rush, etc.. However, as you used Unitas I would like to use Joe Namath to support my claims. After the Jet Super Bowl victory over the Baltimore Colts, Namath NEVER led a team to a victory over a team with a better than .500 record. I'm sure Mr. Buchsbaum had Namath very highly rated after the Super Bowl but facts show Namath was nothing more than a pedestrian quarterback. There were a couple of lines you used in your article that disturbs me. 1. "Brady was a sixth-round draft pick". "Thus, personnel were slow to give his due." "They weren't going to concede they were wrong based on one season or maybe even two or three." 2. "Clearly, he (Brady) was a top player as soon as he became a starter and his No. 1 ranking before this past season was a much a reflection of his play in 10 and 03 as it was his play in 05." "It was just that scouts were either slow to recognize his talents or slow to admit a mistake or both." Both of these were assumptions on your part to support your theory. Assumptions sometimes can be construed as facts. Finally, your Pittsburgh Steeler coverage was a little over the top!! You stated that after the Super Bowl the Steelers had four players in the top 50. You then say "One also could argue that they easily could have had three others." You then say "If the scouts had rated the Steelers two-headed monster at running back as one, they also COULD have included it in the top 50." You express the opinion that Joey Porter just barely missed the top 50 list." This is all summed up by saying "In other words, the Steelers had four of the top 50 players in the game, more than any other team, and ESSENTIALLY had the equivalent of a top 50 player at three other positions. And if they had a least seven of the best 60 players in the game, it was a unusually high number of good players, maybe more than any team since the talent-loaded Cowboys of the early 1990's." Cliff!!! You made the jump from 4 to 7 top players by expanding the top 50 list to the top 60 list. As I said, you're a good writer and you have masterfully made your case, however; I'm still convinced the offensive line, the fullback, and the tight ends decide whether a quarterback and halfback are great, good, or average. Enjoy your retirement to the max.
A: Cliff Christl - Paul, with all due respect, you make some good arguments, but I think most of them are totally off base and show a lack of understanding about the game. Let's take your points one by one. 1) Yes, you need a good offensive line and certainly a good to very good left tackle. But most offensive linemen in the game fall into that same category: Good, just good. There are very few who are exceptional. That's why if you look at most of the top teams for the past decade or more, their offensive linemen were mostly late picks and free agents. Take, for example, the right guard position on the Packers. Ron Hallstrom, a good player, had a typically solid year in 1992, his last with the team. The Packers sign Harry Galbreath. He's solid for three years. In '96, they replace him with Adam Timmerman, a second-year, seventh-round draft pick, and win the Super Bowl. Timmerman leaves, they replace him with Marco Rivera, a comparable player. Rivera leaves and the Packers suffer for one year. But now they've got Jason Spitz and I'm guessing he'll be a solid starter for several years. The same at center: Campen to Winters to Flanagan to Wells. Not much difference. If you go back and study other offensive lines around the league, you'll find the same thing. The Colts won the Super Bowl this year with two below average guards and after losing their right tackle to injury. The fullback position is becoming extinct. Watch games and see how many snaps fullbacks get with most teams. Tight end? Yeah, a good deep threat can make a big difference. But what was the last team to win a Super Bowl with better than just a good tight end? I'd say the Ravens with Shannon Sharpe in 2000. If those positions were so important, why are those essentially the lowest paid positions in the game? I think the answer is obvious. Because GMs and coaches don't place anywhere near as much value on them as you do -- maybe you alone -- and they also recognize that good ones are a dime a dozen. 2) I used Buchsbaum's ratings after the Super Bowl season. Here's why: Most players in the league are up and down. They might have a very good year, a sub-par, a good year. The great players are normally consistent as long as they're healthy. But the others aren't. What sense would it make when trying to explain why the Packers won the Super Bowl to address Favre's standing as a player based on his 1995 performance as opposed to his 1996 performance. Your logic on that one totally baffles me. Also, players ranked in the top 10 rarely have a great year and then fall off unless there's an injury involved. If you look at most of the players Buchsbaum listed in the top 10 over that period, they will be serious candidates for the Hall of Fame. Kampman and Driver had big statistical years last year for the Packers. Will they be in this year's top 10? No. Might not even be in the top 50. They're not good enough. 3) As for your Rams example, I'm guessing some of those players had down years or injury situations, but I don't have the time to research it. Warner had been the MVP of the league. But didn't an injury lead to his rapid descent? That's the NFL. Other than qbs, offensive linemen and rare talents like Rice, Payton, White, etc., players generally have very short shelf lives. And even some qbs do. Warner was one. The year you noted was three years after the Rams won the Super Bowl. That said, some of those players continued to be special: Notably Pace and Holt. 4) Your point about Unitas is well taken. It was a different game. I don't think I'm alone among those who think he was the greatest qb of all time for his era. But let's move on to Namath. You obviously never saw Namath play. I'm guessing that any living coach or scout who saw Namath would agree that he was one of the most talented, if not the most talented quarterback, in NFL history. But he had bad knees and he was like Lynn Dickey soon after that Super Bowl season. He became a statue. The two most talented qbs I've ever seen were Namath and Bert Jones. Both had their careers cut short by injuries. So they're not the greatest I've seen. But they were great for a short time. They were both much better passers than Favre. So don't just draw conclusions from looking at statistics. Go watch some old tapes. As for Brady, I think he's better than Montana. Throws a more accurate deep ball, could play in any system. Last season, Brady played with two starting wide receivers that were virtually castoffs. Favre has played with mediocre receivers, but nothing as bad as Caldwell and Gaffney. The Patriots didn't have a great running game, either, yet they came within a minute and one score of probably winning a fourth Super Bowl. Sorry for being blunt, but if you can't recognize Brady's talents and don't consider him a Hall of Fame quarterback, I would suggest you switch to watching bowling. 5) I know I'm going on and on. Yes, I took some leaps in drawing opinions about the Steelers. And I admitted they maybe won because of the depth of their very good players as opposed to any superstars. Maybe they were an exception to my theory. But I don't buy that. I didn't get into this in the column because it was long enough. But I thought both Roethlisberger and Polamalu were top 10 players that year, superstars for at least a year. They might have been flashes in the pan: Roethlisberger because of the accident and maybe Polamalu because of some shortcomings that teams have learned to exploit. If you don't get football, look at other sports. Dwayne Wade. Was he not a great player last year when he led his team to the NBA title? Was he not one of the top two or three players in the game? But now he's dealing with an injury and, if it's severe enough, there's a chance he might never again be the same player. Tiger Woods is great every year. Other golfers are up and down. But if someone other than Woods wins three, four, five tournaments they'll be recognized for having a great year. But the next year, they might not make the cut half the time and their stock plummets. Again, great players typically play consistently at least for several years if they stay healthy, the same as Woods.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave Verhasselt of Wrightstown - Cliff, I know you're not a fan, but surely you can identify an "entertaining" game from a snoozer. In all your years covering the Packers, what would you say was the most entertaining, or exciting game you've seen the Packers play? Along the same lines, which was the most exciting or entertaining team or season? For me, I'll make a case for the Monday night Redskins game in 1983....and though they didn't make the playoffs, the '89 Packers certainly kept fans on the edge of their seats.
A: Cliff Christl - I covered that Monday night game vs. the Redskins, but it wasn't exciting to me. I was working and, I think working under a tight deadline. I don't remember exactly when we switched to an a.m. paper when I was in Green Bay. But, typically, for night games, we have to have our stories submitted to an editor within minutes of the end of the game. In other words, you're writing your story or maybe two, keeping a play-by-play and keeping notes all the way through. I was probably sitting in the press box cussing that both teams were scoring too much because I couldn't keep up and was in danger of missing my deadline. And when you miss deadline in our business, you hear about it. If the Packer game ends at 11:01 and our deadline is 11:05, you're expected to meet the deadline and have your entire story done. The best Packer game I ever saw was the '62 Packers-Lions game in Lambeau, then new City Stadium. Probably the two best teams in the NFL in the Lombardi Era -- from 1959 through '67 -- were the '62 Packers and the '62 Lions. It was a 9-7 game, a great defensive battle. And I was 15 and didn't have to work. So I enjoyed it. Most entertaining season? I was covering baseball in '89 and really didn't watch the Packers. There were two years there where I didn't pay attention because I wasn't writing about them at all. What might have been my most exciting season was 1980. The last exhibition game, the Packers get beat, 38-0. Ezra Johnson gets caught eating a hot dog on the sideline. All you know what breaks loose. The defensive line coach quits the week before the opener. Then, the Packers shock the Bears on that fluke play by Chester Marcol. But they finish 5-10-1 and one of the loses is to the Bears, 61-7, when Starr gets in a brouhaha with Neill Armstrong, the Bears' coach, after the game. There were stories to write almost every day about how Starr was in danger of losing his job, problems in the locker room, etc. That's what I think most good newspaper guys live for: Big news stories, opportunities to unearth stories that nobody else has. I don't know how many times I need to make this point: But my focus is my job. Whether the Packers win 48-47 or lose 61-7, whether they win the Super Bowl or go 4-12, whether I have to interview Brett Favre or T.J. Rubley, it doesn't matter. My job, my focus is the same. By the way, do you know that before every NFL game, the press box announcer informs those in the press box that there will be absolutely no cheering and if anyone violates the rule, they will be ejected? It even bothers me when I hear someone next to me cheering under their breath. Very few do, but when it happens, it's distracting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: phil of green bay - cliff,good luck in your retirement, while i cant remember ever really agreeing with you on any significant issue regarding the pack, ( going back to you and begels witch hunt for starr) ,you have provided a great forum for us fans ,and have never shied away from printing opposing views.my last two points i will disagree with you are :i dont believe, (because your not one ) you get the idea of being a "fan"-many of us dont lead the gifted life that you do, covering sports full time getting handsomely paid for it, riding off on your harley at will,a great wife and in fact life...many of us have had miserable marriages and worse divorces, lay-offs , bankruptcies, ungrateful kids and 25 year old bosses who cant tie their own shoes...and the only respite we receive is the 3 hours on sunday and the countless hours we spend immersed in the packer spell..i in fact devote about 55 hours a week reading about pfball..just as one who loves wine can site the virtues of a merlot, many packer fans can do the same with play calling , clock management and yes even free agency...i really do believe you underestimate the knowledge of many packer fans...secondly you fail to realize that the pursuit of a super bowl is a dynamic relationship..not a static one...ill guarantee you that the 30 non super bowl gms arent comparing their rosters to the 85 bears or the 96 packers...but to the 06 bears and colts... and the frenzied free agent over spending this year is due to that comparison and the realization that those were horrible teams and maybe the worst 2 super bowl teams in history.i believe most teams feel that they have at least comparable talent and 1 or 2 players could put them over the top. heck player by player the packers arent that much worse than the bears.enjoy your time away from sports and try and use your time writing about something you enjoy your talent as a writer is undeniable (just not your knowledge of football...).
A: Cliff Christl - I can't imagine why anyone would read someone that they thought knew nothing or very little about the subject they were writing about. What a waste of time on your part! But if you thought Bart Starr should retain his job after nine years, a 52-76-3 record and a mere 13 victories over teams that finished with a winning record and just two against teams that finished with 10 wins or more, I can see why you never agreed with me. But thanks for giving me credit for running Bart Starr out of town. A lot of people still pay me that compliment around Green Bay, although I don't necessarily think it's deserved. I agree that I've had a great life and have a great family and have been fortunate to work for three or four newspapers for more than 35 years. I love the business and it still stirs my passion. I just don't love the Packers. They don't sign my check. They don't even like me being around some times, maybe all the time. I owe my loyalty to the Journal Sentinel, your football team. As for your expectations for next year, for the Packers, as I recently wrote, there's nothing wrong with pipedreams. And the Bears weren't a very good Super Bowl representative. They probably would have been if they hadn't lost one of their two best players before the game. But the best four teams played in the AFC. And I thought the Colts were as good as most Super Bowl champs. Peyton Manning is pretty special and I think one of the two best players in the game, along with Brady. And that's all most of the Super Bowl champs have had: One or two great players to win the games and a lot of good ones that didn't screw up and lose them. Anyway, now that I'm retiring, maybe you can chop off an hour or so of those 55 that you spend reading about pro football and get a life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John of Indy - Wouldn't Thompson be better served pulling a Ditka and trading up to draft a Calvin Johnson or Adrian Peterson than standing pat @ #16 and/or bringing in Moss? PFW seems to be very high on both these players in their current draft book, claiming both have Hall of Fame potential and Johnson "can take the league by storm the way Randy Moss did and may threaten Jerry Rice's receiving records by the time he finishes playing football because of his exceptional football character." It seems that a bold move like this is the only real way Thompson will get a HOF-caliber player based on the fact that the Packers seem to have just enough talent to avoid a 2-14 season. Also, will you be allowed to nominate a replacement on the Hall of Fame selection committee? Thanks and best of luck!
A: Cliff Christl - I don't have the value of all the Packers' picks in front of me, but I don't think they add up to the 3,000 that the No. 1 pick is worth. So if Johnson goes No. 1, he's probably still out of reach even if Thompson offers all of his picks. If Peterson slips, maybe they could swing a deal and I think it would be worth consideration. The Packers have a lot of good players; they need someone special. But, remember, the odds of any pick from No. 5 on down of becoming a Pro Bowl player are less than 50%. And if Peterson slips to that point, it will tell you that scouts have at least some reservations about him. I don't care what a team needs, it won't pass on the last potentially great player on the board. And even the best of drafts don't usually produce more than about three great players.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: terry Chaney of Royal Oak, Michigan - Did any of the tight ends currently on the roster do anything that you remember in watching them practice last year? I remember hearing that they were going to get worked in toward the end of last year but don't remember anyone catching a pass. Have lots of fun on the bike!!!
A: Cliff Christl - Tory Humphrey is a good athlete and will make some catches in practice that raise your eyebrows. But there has been no consistency there and there also has been some history of injury. Zac Alcorn is a blue-collar player, maybe with more speed than meets the eye. Could they be good players? There's a chance. But there's no proven tight end on the roster other than Bubba, if you're going to count him. That said, you can count the number of really good tight ends in the league on about one hand: Gates, Gonzales, Shockley, Crumpler, maybe Heap and maybe Winslow is getting close.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: James of Brookfield, WI - Hey Cliff - question regarding free agency again. I understand your and the Packers viewpoints on free agency and why overpay for someone who is not that good. However the Packers have over 20 million in cap room - NFL rules state that all teams must use at least 85 percent of their salary cap - the Packers are waaay under that at this point. Sure they can use the money to lock up Barnett and Corey Williams to new deals but thats still going to leave them short of the 85 percent even after draft choices. So why not spend a little of it on useful players Justin Griffith is not a great player but he's better than what we have - and he didn't get a big contract at all. I'd much rather take him at 3 years younger & familiar with the Packers system than some soon to be 30 year old fullback from the Browns. Your thoughts on where the Packers are going to use the rest of this $ - there are not many guys worth locking up to new deals on the current roster.
A: Cliff Christl - I just don't think you ever want to overpay for a player. Don't overlook this: Players in that locker room know what other players are worth. And I'll guarantee that if somebody is being overpaid someone else is going to be unhappy that they're not getting as much or more. Maybe that's another reason why free agency backfires. It gets players grumbling about money and not concentrating on football. Justin Griffith is a good fullback. But that would be like saying someone is a good apple-picker. You know how many good apple-pickers you could probably find? Proportionately, you could probably find about the same number of good fullbacks. Again, it's March. Training camp doesn't start until July. Last year Thompson had money left and went after Woodson and Arrington. Maybe that's his plan this year. To go after Moss or to try and trade for Turner or do something else late. So why nickle-and-dime away your cap number on a fullback, who might play 30 to 40% of the offensive plays, which is about a half of all the plays in the game. Do you own a business? I don't mean to be a smart aleck. But would you pay a janitor twice the going rate just because you had money to spend? Remember pro football is a business, first and foremost, and I think the good teams are guided by the same business principles as successful companies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: steve plotkin of henderson nv - I've enjoyed rubbing elbows and bumping heads with you over the years, you've stimulated your readers well! Cliff, with more information available than ever before on players via the internet, Tv and radio the draft is becoming the football junkies survival kit until preseason comes back around. That being said I have my own version of what the Packers need. Initiate a trade with Dallas, Julius Jones to GB and we flip flop 1st round picks. Dallas can get a better DB and we get an experienced RB. TE is the most serious need and the Pack red zone offense was a disaster. Greg Olsen would create a weapon for Brett in the red zone and should still be available at the 22nd slot. There are way to many good wideouts in this draft to let one get away in the second round. Smith of USC, Gonzalez of Ohio State and Hill of Wash State could be available for the Pack to pick up. In the third round they should take a Running back. With the Packers zone blocking scheme Hunt of Penn State, Pittman of OSU and Bush of Louisville would be a nice fit. In round 4 I take a QB, Beck of BYU or Edwards of Stanford whomever is available with that selection. I know safety is a primary need for this team but you can't get everything in one draft, it's time to build up the offense first. So for the last time, what do you think?
A: Cliff Christl - Sorry, I don't have that kind of insight. And what's that saying "about the best laid plans...?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tim of Batavia - Cliff, I enjoyed your article about the Redskins and the correlation to today's Packers. Since I am in an optimistic mood - I am going more towards the thought process that our young players are going to step up and turn from young and promising into young and solid, or from young and solid into young and really good. Am I looking at things thru rose colored glasses?
A: Cliff Christl - Really good won't cut it. They need someone to step up to the point where he can take over games and win them at crunch time; players with the ability to dominate. Do you see any candidates?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Rich of La - Hey Cliff you old goat, it looks like your old buddy Matt Millen outlasted you. You get the last laugh because you won't be around to take all the ridicule when he gets fired. But, congrats on your retirement. You will be missed. In a chat last spring I remember you predicting,"the Bears could go to the Super Bowl." What's your early prediction on the Packers for this coming season?
A: Cliff Christl - You know, they said the same things about Mike Brown that they did about Matt Millen. Then, the Bengals started winning --- I understand they shifted some authority to Lewis -- and you don't hear a peep out of the Mike Brown critics. I know the Bengals have a lot of issues right now, but I still think they would have won the Super Bowl in '05 if Carson Palmer hadn't been hurt against the Steelers. Anyway, an early prediction on the Packers? 8-8 at best, but probably more like 6-10. And if they trade for Moss? 8-8 at best. But I want to qualify that: If they hit the jackpot with their No. 1 draft pick, I might change my mind as soon as that became evident in training camp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Charley Boynton of Fox Point - Much has been made of the loss of Ahman Green to the Texans in free agency and the general lack of depth at wide receiver. But what could be even more devastating is the loss of David Martin to free agency and Ted Thompson's seeming lack of interest to pursue a quality tight end in free agency. Randy McMichael, Daniel Graham and Eric Johnson all would have been great additions that could have stretched the opponent's defenses and give Favre a big target in the middle of the field. Favre had his best seasons when Mark Chumura or Bubba Franks were on the top of their games. Instead the Packers are stuck with a clearly declining and possibly done Franks, Donald Lee and a bunch of scrubs. This year's draft class also is particularly weak at the Tight End position, one year after the Packers passed on Vernon Davis who possessed freakish natural abilities. Do you think that the way Thompson has handled the Tight End position can be explained by the fact that he inexplainable gave Franks a 7 year $28 million deal as one of his first moves as GM? Is he just unwilling to admit he made a huge mistake? How do you see this position shaking out by the time the season starts? Is Lee ready to start?
A: Cliff Christl - McMichael, Graham and Johnson would not have been great additions because they're not great players. They're good and maybe better than what the Packers have, but not by much. I agree that Martin was their best weapon at tight end last year when he was on the field. But that hasn't been very often. Time will tell on the decision to take Hawk over Davis. But most teams are playing with nothing more than a serviceable tight end. The Bears and Colts got to the Super Bowl with tight ends who fall into that category, although Dallas Clark might be on the high end of the good range. Also, there are still some serviceable tight ends available. Jerramy Stevens has some issues, but he has more ability than any of the tight ends you mentioned. You never know. As I noted, Humphrey or Alcorn could blossom. I wouldn't bet on it. But Humphrey is as talented as Martin; he just doesn't have any experience and has been even less consistent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jim of toledo , ohio - Hi Chris Thank's for taking my question i've heard adam archuleta is being shopped around by washington for a mid round pick , he was a very good player with the rams i think he'dd be a great pick up what do you think ? Let's trade for Moss already sure he's no angel but he's not the devil either i bet we got guys just as bad already here we need some weapon's on offense right now....Jenning's ok but really fell off as the season went on he's a good 2nd receiver TT waits and waits how much more is it going to cost signing Barrent for instance then signing him before free agency started the money thrown around only upped the ante
A: Cliff Christl - The Bears signed Archuleta and he might help them now that he's back playing in Lovie Smith's cover two scheme. But Archuleta couldn't play in the Redskins' scheme. And that means he probably couldn't have played in the Packers' scheme. That's another thing you have to remember about free agency. Most great players could play in any system: Players like Favre, Reggie White, Butler. But most of the others need to fit a system or they aren't going to be effective. That's another reason why it's stupid for anyone to conclude some free agent would be a great addition to a certain team or to lament the loss of some other free agent. That's why teams have scouts who study players for 10, 12, 15 hours a day: Not only to judge their ability, but to determine what kind of fit they'd be on their particular teams. And even when scouts have first-hand knowledge of players, they make mistakes. Marquand Manuel might be a good player, but he certainly appeared to be a poor fit in the Packers' scheme. And you don't change schemes for a Marquand Manuel. Keep in mind, too, that that rule about getting a good fit pretty much applies to every position on the field.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeremy Schulthess of Milwaukee - Hi Cliff. In response to your, "presenting the evidence" article, in which I totally agree, you forgot to mention that even though Wolf traded a first round pick for Favre he said that he thought Favre was the best player in the draft and had the Falcons not used their 2nd round pick on him just before the Jets he would have drafted Favre. The reason he never was able to is that the Jets did not have a first round pick otherwise it would be quite possible that Favre would have been a Jet. Also in regards to next months draft assuming there are 4 players available that you have in an equal spot for your first pick, a safety, a running back, a tight end, and a wide receiver, and you are Thompson which position would you address?
A: Cliff Christl - You're absolutely correct about Wolf and Favre. That just shows how different scouts view different players from different perspectives. Hasn't Wolf said that he had Favre rated the No. 1 player in the draft? And where did Favre go? 33. Not necessarily you Jeremy, but people should keep that in mind on draft day if the Packers' pick someone that the draftniks rated much lower. Dick Haley, the longtime personnel guy in Pittsburgh and New York, told me that one of his scouts, former Packer scout Jesse Kaye, had Tom Brady rated well above a sixth-round draft pick. But the Jets took Chad Pennington in the first round, so they forgot about Brady. But some people saw all that talent in Brady. As for what the Packers should draft? Again, I think it would be a mistake on their part to draft for need. But, obviously, running back is their most pressing need. Keep in mind that a running back is going to get a lot more touches than a wide receiver or tight end.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff of Mercer, Wi - hi Cliff...........I've been reading with interest your theories on playmakers and how winning teams generally have one or two of the top 10 - 15 players in the game on their rosters.....most of the time these players are drafted, occasionally traded for, once in a great while acquired through free agency......a common thread in all of this is a GM or coach who head the brains, luck, and or guts to draft, trade, or sign one of these guys...........my question to you is: do you think, from what you've observed, that Ted Thompson has the stones to make the big bold move, and bring a big time player to GB? or is he too much of a "play it safe" kind of guy to get a team over the hump?......understand, I'm not being critical, in fact I agree with most of what he has done so far, just trying to get a handle on whether you think he can ultimately succeed, or just get the Packers back to .500 and no more..........enjoy your retirement, we're all going to miss you out here.....
A: Cliff Christl - Great question. I think Thompson is more conservative than Wolf. Plus, he was part of putting that Seattle team together without making any big, bold moves. But, then again, the Seahawks haven't won a Super Bowl and time might be running out with Alexander and Jones getting up in years. I think Thompson would be willing to take a chance. But the opportunity to trade for a Favre was a once in a lifetime thing. It might just be that Thompson will never get a chance to do something like that. I'm scrambling here for an answer and I don't think I'm doing a very good job. I think hard work pays off and Thompson, from everything I've heard, works hard. I'm sure hard work played a part in the Patriots drafting Brady and the Broncos drafting Terrell Davis. So did luck. But some scout somewhere saw something in those two players that others didn't. As you look back, you wonder why it wasn't obvious to everyone. Brady is one of the best two or three quarterbacks of the last decade. I think Davis was one of the best running backs. I don't buy that system stuff. The Broncos might churn out 1,000-yard rushers, but they won two Super Bowls because Davis was more special than that. The Packers couldn't tackle him. He won SB XXXII. And, again, wasn't it John Dorsey who tried to sell Wolf on Davis? So there was at least one scout who saw the talent there, as well. Sorry about the incoherent answer. But we'll end the chat here: On a better question than answer.
A: Cliff Christl - Dave, you posted the first question, we'll start with you. First, let me point out that Thompson has drafted a quarterback in each of his two drafts: Rodgers in 2005 and Ingle Martin in 2006. So I don't think you can criticize him. One of Sherman's mistakes was that he traded too many picks and that didn't leave him enough to draft a quarterback. But you make a good point. Years ago, I remember John Madden telling me the hardest time to find a quarterback is when you don't have one. I think that usually holds true for whatever reasons. And, yes, Wolf had some success in the mid to late rounds drafting quarterbacks -- when he didn't need one -- but only two have proven to be capable starters: Hasselbeck and Brunell at one time. That's still a pretty good percentage. In fact, it's an exceptional percentage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Greg benkowski of Omaha, Nebrasak - What is Brett Favre's opinion on the possibility of acquiring Randy Moss?
A: Cliff Christl - I don't know that Favre has said anything. Favre's agent, who also represented Moss at one time, has been lobbying for the trade. So I assume that means Favre likes the idea. Why wouldn't he? It might give him a better chance to win and might give him the best deep threat he's had, or at least second best to Javon Walker. Moss was exceptional at one time. I would be surprised if the Moss of today is better than the Javon Walker of 2003.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Paul of Viroqua, WI - Mr. Christl, let me say first that I enjoy your articles and will miss them greatly upon your retirement. Now, in regard to your article of 13 March "Here's The Evidence On How Great Players Win Super Bowls," I would like to offer my own opinion regarding "great players." Without a "very good" offensive line, fullback, and tight end, NO quarterback or halfback will ever be "great." Wide receivers is another story as their ability to get open, catch the ball, and take the ball from defenders is paramount in being considered a great receiver. An item I'm not quite clear on is whether Mr. Buchsbaum's ratings for those rating years you list were made before or after the year of the Super Bowl win. If it was made after someone had a great year I would suggest it's irrelevant as anyone can have an exceptional game/year then return to mediocrity. Though they didn't win the Super Bowl in 2001, the St. Louis Rams had six players on Mr. Buchsbaum's 2002 Top Fifty players list (Marshall Faulk rated # 1, Kurt Warner rated # 2, Aeneas Williams rated # 10th, Orlando Pace rated # 20, Terry Holt rated # 44, and Grant Wistrom rated # 50 and were 14 - 2 in 2001 but with the same six players on there roster in 2002 they finished 7 - 9. Therefore, with six players on Mr. Buchsbaum's Top Fifty list, the Cardinals couldn't even play .500 ball. I don't mean to demean your theory nor dismiss everything you say, I merely want to point out that nothing is etched in stone. You're a great writer and like any writer I'm sure you could make an equally strong case with the exact opposite conclusion of you 13 March article. A couple of other minor points I would like to address are: Johnny Unitas; using Unitas in your article is really apples and oranges, football in the Unitas era can't be compared to today's quarterbacks due to specialty players, the speed of the game, constant infusion of fresh legs in to the line, the pass rush, etc.. However, as you used Unitas I would like to use Joe Namath to support my claims. After the Jet Super Bowl victory over the Baltimore Colts, Namath NEVER led a team to a victory over a team with a better than .500 record. I'm sure Mr. Buchsbaum had Namath very highly rated after the Super Bowl but facts show Namath was nothing more than a pedestrian quarterback. There were a couple of lines you used in your article that disturbs me. 1. "Brady was a sixth-round draft pick". "Thus, personnel were slow to give his due." "They weren't going to concede they were wrong based on one season or maybe even two or three." 2. "Clearly, he (Brady) was a top player as soon as he became a starter and his No. 1 ranking before this past season was a much a reflection of his play in 10 and 03 as it was his play in 05." "It was just that scouts were either slow to recognize his talents or slow to admit a mistake or both." Both of these were assumptions on your part to support your theory. Assumptions sometimes can be construed as facts. Finally, your Pittsburgh Steeler coverage was a little over the top!! You stated that after the Super Bowl the Steelers had four players in the top 50. You then say "One also could argue that they easily could have had three others." You then say "If the scouts had rated the Steelers two-headed monster at running back as one, they also COULD have included it in the top 50." You express the opinion that Joey Porter just barely missed the top 50 list." This is all summed up by saying "In other words, the Steelers had four of the top 50 players in the game, more than any other team, and ESSENTIALLY had the equivalent of a top 50 player at three other positions. And if they had a least seven of the best 60 players in the game, it was a unusually high number of good players, maybe more than any team since the talent-loaded Cowboys of the early 1990's." Cliff!!! You made the jump from 4 to 7 top players by expanding the top 50 list to the top 60 list. As I said, you're a good writer and you have masterfully made your case, however; I'm still convinced the offensive line, the fullback, and the tight ends decide whether a quarterback and halfback are great, good, or average. Enjoy your retirement to the max.
A: Cliff Christl - Paul, with all due respect, you make some good arguments, but I think most of them are totally off base and show a lack of understanding about the game. Let's take your points one by one. 1) Yes, you need a good offensive line and certainly a good to very good left tackle. But most offensive linemen in the game fall into that same category: Good, just good. There are very few who are exceptional. That's why if you look at most of the top teams for the past decade or more, their offensive linemen were mostly late picks and free agents. Take, for example, the right guard position on the Packers. Ron Hallstrom, a good player, had a typically solid year in 1992, his last with the team. The Packers sign Harry Galbreath. He's solid for three years. In '96, they replace him with Adam Timmerman, a second-year, seventh-round draft pick, and win the Super Bowl. Timmerman leaves, they replace him with Marco Rivera, a comparable player. Rivera leaves and the Packers suffer for one year. But now they've got Jason Spitz and I'm guessing he'll be a solid starter for several years. The same at center: Campen to Winters to Flanagan to Wells. Not much difference. If you go back and study other offensive lines around the league, you'll find the same thing. The Colts won the Super Bowl this year with two below average guards and after losing their right tackle to injury. The fullback position is becoming extinct. Watch games and see how many snaps fullbacks get with most teams. Tight end? Yeah, a good deep threat can make a big difference. But what was the last team to win a Super Bowl with better than just a good tight end? I'd say the Ravens with Shannon Sharpe in 2000. If those positions were so important, why are those essentially the lowest paid positions in the game? I think the answer is obvious. Because GMs and coaches don't place anywhere near as much value on them as you do -- maybe you alone -- and they also recognize that good ones are a dime a dozen. 2) I used Buchsbaum's ratings after the Super Bowl season. Here's why: Most players in the league are up and down. They might have a very good year, a sub-par, a good year. The great players are normally consistent as long as they're healthy. But the others aren't. What sense would it make when trying to explain why the Packers won the Super Bowl to address Favre's standing as a player based on his 1995 performance as opposed to his 1996 performance. Your logic on that one totally baffles me. Also, players ranked in the top 10 rarely have a great year and then fall off unless there's an injury involved. If you look at most of the players Buchsbaum listed in the top 10 over that period, they will be serious candidates for the Hall of Fame. Kampman and Driver had big statistical years last year for the Packers. Will they be in this year's top 10? No. Might not even be in the top 50. They're not good enough. 3) As for your Rams example, I'm guessing some of those players had down years or injury situations, but I don't have the time to research it. Warner had been the MVP of the league. But didn't an injury lead to his rapid descent? That's the NFL. Other than qbs, offensive linemen and rare talents like Rice, Payton, White, etc., players generally have very short shelf lives. And even some qbs do. Warner was one. The year you noted was three years after the Rams won the Super Bowl. That said, some of those players continued to be special: Notably Pace and Holt. 4) Your point about Unitas is well taken. It was a different game. I don't think I'm alone among those who think he was the greatest qb of all time for his era. But let's move on to Namath. You obviously never saw Namath play. I'm guessing that any living coach or scout who saw Namath would agree that he was one of the most talented, if not the most talented quarterback, in NFL history. But he had bad knees and he was like Lynn Dickey soon after that Super Bowl season. He became a statue. The two most talented qbs I've ever seen were Namath and Bert Jones. Both had their careers cut short by injuries. So they're not the greatest I've seen. But they were great for a short time. They were both much better passers than Favre. So don't just draw conclusions from looking at statistics. Go watch some old tapes. As for Brady, I think he's better than Montana. Throws a more accurate deep ball, could play in any system. Last season, Brady played with two starting wide receivers that were virtually castoffs. Favre has played with mediocre receivers, but nothing as bad as Caldwell and Gaffney. The Patriots didn't have a great running game, either, yet they came within a minute and one score of probably winning a fourth Super Bowl. Sorry for being blunt, but if you can't recognize Brady's talents and don't consider him a Hall of Fame quarterback, I would suggest you switch to watching bowling. 5) I know I'm going on and on. Yes, I took some leaps in drawing opinions about the Steelers. And I admitted they maybe won because of the depth of their very good players as opposed to any superstars. Maybe they were an exception to my theory. But I don't buy that. I didn't get into this in the column because it was long enough. But I thought both Roethlisberger and Polamalu were top 10 players that year, superstars for at least a year. They might have been flashes in the pan: Roethlisberger because of the accident and maybe Polamalu because of some shortcomings that teams have learned to exploit. If you don't get football, look at other sports. Dwayne Wade. Was he not a great player last year when he led his team to the NBA title? Was he not one of the top two or three players in the game? But now he's dealing with an injury and, if it's severe enough, there's a chance he might never again be the same player. Tiger Woods is great every year. Other golfers are up and down. But if someone other than Woods wins three, four, five tournaments they'll be recognized for having a great year. But the next year, they might not make the cut half the time and their stock plummets. Again, great players typically play consistently at least for several years if they stay healthy, the same as Woods.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave Verhasselt of Wrightstown - Cliff, I know you're not a fan, but surely you can identify an "entertaining" game from a snoozer. In all your years covering the Packers, what would you say was the most entertaining, or exciting game you've seen the Packers play? Along the same lines, which was the most exciting or entertaining team or season? For me, I'll make a case for the Monday night Redskins game in 1983....and though they didn't make the playoffs, the '89 Packers certainly kept fans on the edge of their seats.
A: Cliff Christl - I covered that Monday night game vs. the Redskins, but it wasn't exciting to me. I was working and, I think working under a tight deadline. I don't remember exactly when we switched to an a.m. paper when I was in Green Bay. But, typically, for night games, we have to have our stories submitted to an editor within minutes of the end of the game. In other words, you're writing your story or maybe two, keeping a play-by-play and keeping notes all the way through. I was probably sitting in the press box cussing that both teams were scoring too much because I couldn't keep up and was in danger of missing my deadline. And when you miss deadline in our business, you hear about it. If the Packer game ends at 11:01 and our deadline is 11:05, you're expected to meet the deadline and have your entire story done. The best Packer game I ever saw was the '62 Packers-Lions game in Lambeau, then new City Stadium. Probably the two best teams in the NFL in the Lombardi Era -- from 1959 through '67 -- were the '62 Packers and the '62 Lions. It was a 9-7 game, a great defensive battle. And I was 15 and didn't have to work. So I enjoyed it. Most entertaining season? I was covering baseball in '89 and really didn't watch the Packers. There were two years there where I didn't pay attention because I wasn't writing about them at all. What might have been my most exciting season was 1980. The last exhibition game, the Packers get beat, 38-0. Ezra Johnson gets caught eating a hot dog on the sideline. All you know what breaks loose. The defensive line coach quits the week before the opener. Then, the Packers shock the Bears on that fluke play by Chester Marcol. But they finish 5-10-1 and one of the loses is to the Bears, 61-7, when Starr gets in a brouhaha with Neill Armstrong, the Bears' coach, after the game. There were stories to write almost every day about how Starr was in danger of losing his job, problems in the locker room, etc. That's what I think most good newspaper guys live for: Big news stories, opportunities to unearth stories that nobody else has. I don't know how many times I need to make this point: But my focus is my job. Whether the Packers win 48-47 or lose 61-7, whether they win the Super Bowl or go 4-12, whether I have to interview Brett Favre or T.J. Rubley, it doesn't matter. My job, my focus is the same. By the way, do you know that before every NFL game, the press box announcer informs those in the press box that there will be absolutely no cheering and if anyone violates the rule, they will be ejected? It even bothers me when I hear someone next to me cheering under their breath. Very few do, but when it happens, it's distracting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: phil of green bay - cliff,good luck in your retirement, while i cant remember ever really agreeing with you on any significant issue regarding the pack, ( going back to you and begels witch hunt for starr) ,you have provided a great forum for us fans ,and have never shied away from printing opposing views.my last two points i will disagree with you are :i dont believe, (because your not one ) you get the idea of being a "fan"-many of us dont lead the gifted life that you do, covering sports full time getting handsomely paid for it, riding off on your harley at will,a great wife and in fact life...many of us have had miserable marriages and worse divorces, lay-offs , bankruptcies, ungrateful kids and 25 year old bosses who cant tie their own shoes...and the only respite we receive is the 3 hours on sunday and the countless hours we spend immersed in the packer spell..i in fact devote about 55 hours a week reading about pfball..just as one who loves wine can site the virtues of a merlot, many packer fans can do the same with play calling , clock management and yes even free agency...i really do believe you underestimate the knowledge of many packer fans...secondly you fail to realize that the pursuit of a super bowl is a dynamic relationship..not a static one...ill guarantee you that the 30 non super bowl gms arent comparing their rosters to the 85 bears or the 96 packers...but to the 06 bears and colts... and the frenzied free agent over spending this year is due to that comparison and the realization that those were horrible teams and maybe the worst 2 super bowl teams in history.i believe most teams feel that they have at least comparable talent and 1 or 2 players could put them over the top. heck player by player the packers arent that much worse than the bears.enjoy your time away from sports and try and use your time writing about something you enjoy your talent as a writer is undeniable (just not your knowledge of football...).
A: Cliff Christl - I can't imagine why anyone would read someone that they thought knew nothing or very little about the subject they were writing about. What a waste of time on your part! But if you thought Bart Starr should retain his job after nine years, a 52-76-3 record and a mere 13 victories over teams that finished with a winning record and just two against teams that finished with 10 wins or more, I can see why you never agreed with me. But thanks for giving me credit for running Bart Starr out of town. A lot of people still pay me that compliment around Green Bay, although I don't necessarily think it's deserved. I agree that I've had a great life and have a great family and have been fortunate to work for three or four newspapers for more than 35 years. I love the business and it still stirs my passion. I just don't love the Packers. They don't sign my check. They don't even like me being around some times, maybe all the time. I owe my loyalty to the Journal Sentinel, your football team. As for your expectations for next year, for the Packers, as I recently wrote, there's nothing wrong with pipedreams. And the Bears weren't a very good Super Bowl representative. They probably would have been if they hadn't lost one of their two best players before the game. But the best four teams played in the AFC. And I thought the Colts were as good as most Super Bowl champs. Peyton Manning is pretty special and I think one of the two best players in the game, along with Brady. And that's all most of the Super Bowl champs have had: One or two great players to win the games and a lot of good ones that didn't screw up and lose them. Anyway, now that I'm retiring, maybe you can chop off an hour or so of those 55 that you spend reading about pro football and get a life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John of Indy - Wouldn't Thompson be better served pulling a Ditka and trading up to draft a Calvin Johnson or Adrian Peterson than standing pat @ #16 and/or bringing in Moss? PFW seems to be very high on both these players in their current draft book, claiming both have Hall of Fame potential and Johnson "can take the league by storm the way Randy Moss did and may threaten Jerry Rice's receiving records by the time he finishes playing football because of his exceptional football character." It seems that a bold move like this is the only real way Thompson will get a HOF-caliber player based on the fact that the Packers seem to have just enough talent to avoid a 2-14 season. Also, will you be allowed to nominate a replacement on the Hall of Fame selection committee? Thanks and best of luck!
A: Cliff Christl - I don't have the value of all the Packers' picks in front of me, but I don't think they add up to the 3,000 that the No. 1 pick is worth. So if Johnson goes No. 1, he's probably still out of reach even if Thompson offers all of his picks. If Peterson slips, maybe they could swing a deal and I think it would be worth consideration. The Packers have a lot of good players; they need someone special. But, remember, the odds of any pick from No. 5 on down of becoming a Pro Bowl player are less than 50%. And if Peterson slips to that point, it will tell you that scouts have at least some reservations about him. I don't care what a team needs, it won't pass on the last potentially great player on the board. And even the best of drafts don't usually produce more than about three great players.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: terry Chaney of Royal Oak, Michigan - Did any of the tight ends currently on the roster do anything that you remember in watching them practice last year? I remember hearing that they were going to get worked in toward the end of last year but don't remember anyone catching a pass. Have lots of fun on the bike!!!
A: Cliff Christl - Tory Humphrey is a good athlete and will make some catches in practice that raise your eyebrows. But there has been no consistency there and there also has been some history of injury. Zac Alcorn is a blue-collar player, maybe with more speed than meets the eye. Could they be good players? There's a chance. But there's no proven tight end on the roster other than Bubba, if you're going to count him. That said, you can count the number of really good tight ends in the league on about one hand: Gates, Gonzales, Shockley, Crumpler, maybe Heap and maybe Winslow is getting close.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: James of Brookfield, WI - Hey Cliff - question regarding free agency again. I understand your and the Packers viewpoints on free agency and why overpay for someone who is not that good. However the Packers have over 20 million in cap room - NFL rules state that all teams must use at least 85 percent of their salary cap - the Packers are waaay under that at this point. Sure they can use the money to lock up Barnett and Corey Williams to new deals but thats still going to leave them short of the 85 percent even after draft choices. So why not spend a little of it on useful players Justin Griffith is not a great player but he's better than what we have - and he didn't get a big contract at all. I'd much rather take him at 3 years younger & familiar with the Packers system than some soon to be 30 year old fullback from the Browns. Your thoughts on where the Packers are going to use the rest of this $ - there are not many guys worth locking up to new deals on the current roster.
A: Cliff Christl - I just don't think you ever want to overpay for a player. Don't overlook this: Players in that locker room know what other players are worth. And I'll guarantee that if somebody is being overpaid someone else is going to be unhappy that they're not getting as much or more. Maybe that's another reason why free agency backfires. It gets players grumbling about money and not concentrating on football. Justin Griffith is a good fullback. But that would be like saying someone is a good apple-picker. You know how many good apple-pickers you could probably find? Proportionately, you could probably find about the same number of good fullbacks. Again, it's March. Training camp doesn't start until July. Last year Thompson had money left and went after Woodson and Arrington. Maybe that's his plan this year. To go after Moss or to try and trade for Turner or do something else late. So why nickle-and-dime away your cap number on a fullback, who might play 30 to 40% of the offensive plays, which is about a half of all the plays in the game. Do you own a business? I don't mean to be a smart aleck. But would you pay a janitor twice the going rate just because you had money to spend? Remember pro football is a business, first and foremost, and I think the good teams are guided by the same business principles as successful companies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: steve plotkin of henderson nv - I've enjoyed rubbing elbows and bumping heads with you over the years, you've stimulated your readers well! Cliff, with more information available than ever before on players via the internet, Tv and radio the draft is becoming the football junkies survival kit until preseason comes back around. That being said I have my own version of what the Packers need. Initiate a trade with Dallas, Julius Jones to GB and we flip flop 1st round picks. Dallas can get a better DB and we get an experienced RB. TE is the most serious need and the Pack red zone offense was a disaster. Greg Olsen would create a weapon for Brett in the red zone and should still be available at the 22nd slot. There are way to many good wideouts in this draft to let one get away in the second round. Smith of USC, Gonzalez of Ohio State and Hill of Wash State could be available for the Pack to pick up. In the third round they should take a Running back. With the Packers zone blocking scheme Hunt of Penn State, Pittman of OSU and Bush of Louisville would be a nice fit. In round 4 I take a QB, Beck of BYU or Edwards of Stanford whomever is available with that selection. I know safety is a primary need for this team but you can't get everything in one draft, it's time to build up the offense first. So for the last time, what do you think?
A: Cliff Christl - Sorry, I don't have that kind of insight. And what's that saying "about the best laid plans...?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tim of Batavia - Cliff, I enjoyed your article about the Redskins and the correlation to today's Packers. Since I am in an optimistic mood - I am going more towards the thought process that our young players are going to step up and turn from young and promising into young and solid, or from young and solid into young and really good. Am I looking at things thru rose colored glasses?
A: Cliff Christl - Really good won't cut it. They need someone to step up to the point where he can take over games and win them at crunch time; players with the ability to dominate. Do you see any candidates?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Rich of La - Hey Cliff you old goat, it looks like your old buddy Matt Millen outlasted you. You get the last laugh because you won't be around to take all the ridicule when he gets fired. But, congrats on your retirement. You will be missed. In a chat last spring I remember you predicting,"the Bears could go to the Super Bowl." What's your early prediction on the Packers for this coming season?
A: Cliff Christl - You know, they said the same things about Mike Brown that they did about Matt Millen. Then, the Bengals started winning --- I understand they shifted some authority to Lewis -- and you don't hear a peep out of the Mike Brown critics. I know the Bengals have a lot of issues right now, but I still think they would have won the Super Bowl in '05 if Carson Palmer hadn't been hurt against the Steelers. Anyway, an early prediction on the Packers? 8-8 at best, but probably more like 6-10. And if they trade for Moss? 8-8 at best. But I want to qualify that: If they hit the jackpot with their No. 1 draft pick, I might change my mind as soon as that became evident in training camp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Charley Boynton of Fox Point - Much has been made of the loss of Ahman Green to the Texans in free agency and the general lack of depth at wide receiver. But what could be even more devastating is the loss of David Martin to free agency and Ted Thompson's seeming lack of interest to pursue a quality tight end in free agency. Randy McMichael, Daniel Graham and Eric Johnson all would have been great additions that could have stretched the opponent's defenses and give Favre a big target in the middle of the field. Favre had his best seasons when Mark Chumura or Bubba Franks were on the top of their games. Instead the Packers are stuck with a clearly declining and possibly done Franks, Donald Lee and a bunch of scrubs. This year's draft class also is particularly weak at the Tight End position, one year after the Packers passed on Vernon Davis who possessed freakish natural abilities. Do you think that the way Thompson has handled the Tight End position can be explained by the fact that he inexplainable gave Franks a 7 year $28 million deal as one of his first moves as GM? Is he just unwilling to admit he made a huge mistake? How do you see this position shaking out by the time the season starts? Is Lee ready to start?
A: Cliff Christl - McMichael, Graham and Johnson would not have been great additions because they're not great players. They're good and maybe better than what the Packers have, but not by much. I agree that Martin was their best weapon at tight end last year when he was on the field. But that hasn't been very often. Time will tell on the decision to take Hawk over Davis. But most teams are playing with nothing more than a serviceable tight end. The Bears and Colts got to the Super Bowl with tight ends who fall into that category, although Dallas Clark might be on the high end of the good range. Also, there are still some serviceable tight ends available. Jerramy Stevens has some issues, but he has more ability than any of the tight ends you mentioned. You never know. As I noted, Humphrey or Alcorn could blossom. I wouldn't bet on it. But Humphrey is as talented as Martin; he just doesn't have any experience and has been even less consistent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jim of toledo , ohio - Hi Chris Thank's for taking my question i've heard adam archuleta is being shopped around by washington for a mid round pick , he was a very good player with the rams i think he'dd be a great pick up what do you think ? Let's trade for Moss already sure he's no angel but he's not the devil either i bet we got guys just as bad already here we need some weapon's on offense right now....Jenning's ok but really fell off as the season went on he's a good 2nd receiver TT waits and waits how much more is it going to cost signing Barrent for instance then signing him before free agency started the money thrown around only upped the ante
A: Cliff Christl - The Bears signed Archuleta and he might help them now that he's back playing in Lovie Smith's cover two scheme. But Archuleta couldn't play in the Redskins' scheme. And that means he probably couldn't have played in the Packers' scheme. That's another thing you have to remember about free agency. Most great players could play in any system: Players like Favre, Reggie White, Butler. But most of the others need to fit a system or they aren't going to be effective. That's another reason why it's stupid for anyone to conclude some free agent would be a great addition to a certain team or to lament the loss of some other free agent. That's why teams have scouts who study players for 10, 12, 15 hours a day: Not only to judge their ability, but to determine what kind of fit they'd be on their particular teams. And even when scouts have first-hand knowledge of players, they make mistakes. Marquand Manuel might be a good player, but he certainly appeared to be a poor fit in the Packers' scheme. And you don't change schemes for a Marquand Manuel. Keep in mind, too, that that rule about getting a good fit pretty much applies to every position on the field.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeremy Schulthess of Milwaukee - Hi Cliff. In response to your, "presenting the evidence" article, in which I totally agree, you forgot to mention that even though Wolf traded a first round pick for Favre he said that he thought Favre was the best player in the draft and had the Falcons not used their 2nd round pick on him just before the Jets he would have drafted Favre. The reason he never was able to is that the Jets did not have a first round pick otherwise it would be quite possible that Favre would have been a Jet. Also in regards to next months draft assuming there are 4 players available that you have in an equal spot for your first pick, a safety, a running back, a tight end, and a wide receiver, and you are Thompson which position would you address?
A: Cliff Christl - You're absolutely correct about Wolf and Favre. That just shows how different scouts view different players from different perspectives. Hasn't Wolf said that he had Favre rated the No. 1 player in the draft? And where did Favre go? 33. Not necessarily you Jeremy, but people should keep that in mind on draft day if the Packers' pick someone that the draftniks rated much lower. Dick Haley, the longtime personnel guy in Pittsburgh and New York, told me that one of his scouts, former Packer scout Jesse Kaye, had Tom Brady rated well above a sixth-round draft pick. But the Jets took Chad Pennington in the first round, so they forgot about Brady. But some people saw all that talent in Brady. As for what the Packers should draft? Again, I think it would be a mistake on their part to draft for need. But, obviously, running back is their most pressing need. Keep in mind that a running back is going to get a lot more touches than a wide receiver or tight end.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff of Mercer, Wi - hi Cliff...........I've been reading with interest your theories on playmakers and how winning teams generally have one or two of the top 10 - 15 players in the game on their rosters.....most of the time these players are drafted, occasionally traded for, once in a great while acquired through free agency......a common thread in all of this is a GM or coach who head the brains, luck, and or guts to draft, trade, or sign one of these guys...........my question to you is: do you think, from what you've observed, that Ted Thompson has the stones to make the big bold move, and bring a big time player to GB? or is he too much of a "play it safe" kind of guy to get a team over the hump?......understand, I'm not being critical, in fact I agree with most of what he has done so far, just trying to get a handle on whether you think he can ultimately succeed, or just get the Packers back to .500 and no more..........enjoy your retirement, we're all going to miss you out here.....
A: Cliff Christl - Great question. I think Thompson is more conservative than Wolf. Plus, he was part of putting that Seattle team together without making any big, bold moves. But, then again, the Seahawks haven't won a Super Bowl and time might be running out with Alexander and Jones getting up in years. I think Thompson would be willing to take a chance. But the opportunity to trade for a Favre was a once in a lifetime thing. It might just be that Thompson will never get a chance to do something like that. I'm scrambling here for an answer and I don't think I'm doing a very good job. I think hard work pays off and Thompson, from everything I've heard, works hard. I'm sure hard work played a part in the Patriots drafting Brady and the Broncos drafting Terrell Davis. So did luck. But some scout somewhere saw something in those two players that others didn't. As you look back, you wonder why it wasn't obvious to everyone. Brady is one of the best two or three quarterbacks of the last decade. I think Davis was one of the best running backs. I don't buy that system stuff. The Broncos might churn out 1,000-yard rushers, but they won two Super Bowls because Davis was more special than that. The Packers couldn't tackle him. He won SB XXXII. And, again, wasn't it John Dorsey who tried to sell Wolf on Davis? So there was at least one scout who saw the talent there, as well. Sorry about the incoherent answer. But we'll end the chat here: On a better question than answer.