woodbuck27
06-05-2007, 02:13 PM
http://forums.packersnews.com/viewtopic.php?t=14025
June 4, 2007: Pete Dougherty chat transcript
Joined: 28 Jul 2006
Posts: 15
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 4:50 pm Post subject: June 4, 2007: Pete Dougherty chat transcript
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Press-Gazette reporter Pete Dougherty chatted with PackersNews.com readers Monday, June 4.
_________________
Julie Riebe
online editor
Green Bay Press-Gazette
jriebe@greenbaypressgazette.com
Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 4
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 10:57 am Post subject: Right Approach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete,
Some assumptions and a question....
I believe that a great defense can more easily overcome a weak offense than vice-versa.
I think Mike Sherman left the Packers in shambles as far as depth and overall talent.
I think TT is doing the right thing by building a strong defense first since both sides of the ball were equally weak. An offense filled with weapons needs a decent QB but one with a great QB and average weapons is stronger on par.
Given all of these assumptions don't you think that TT approach still gives us a very good chance this year to be a playoff team as long as Brett doesn't try to do too much and give the ball away?
I for one don't want to see us fall back into obscurity like we did in the 70's and 80's for one shot at a SB before Brett retires. I think TT approach allows us to be competitive without him for the long haul. Based on what I have read I'm sure I'm in the minority of Packers fans.
PETE DOUGHERTY:
Hi everyone, let's get started. Yes, it's hard to argue with your points, and at least judging by the e-mail I get you're in the minority, though maybe the people who generally weigh in are the ones mad enough to go to the trouble, whereas a decent amount of people could think he's taking the right approach, so they don't e-mail or as questions as often in chats. I don't know, though, if this will be a playoff team this year. The defense has some talent and theoretically should be better, though those starting corners are getting older. I just don't know if they're going to score enough to win 10 games.
Ed Armour
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 4
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:12 pm Post subject: Draft Questions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Pete, perhaps you are aware that the other reporters refer to you as their "resident draft expert." I have a challenge to a typical draft observation I've read on these chats that I'd like to know your opinion of.
It's all but obligatory to say no draft can be judged for three years. Of course, this is self evident. However, this truism is often used as a defense to any questioning of draft strategy and draft value. Another problem with this truism is that it's not very useful. By analogy, I could tell you what stocks you should have brought three years ago. So what? That information would only be useful in developing a strategy for which stocks you ought to buy today. Now is not only the best time to discuss such strategy, but the only time.
Most investors only have the information compiled by experts to help make their decisions. Draftniks, like Mel Kiper, are universally derided as know-nothing amateurs. Yet, in a recent column by Bob McGinn, he asked several "professional scouts" who was the biggest reach on the drafts first day, and they pretty much came up with the same guys the draftniks would have. This is so every year. More or less, the draftniks' guides are pretty accurate in rating where guys expected to go. There's always a slight variation between the different publication, just like there are on various stock value reports, but there is enough there for consensus.
The advantage of a professional investor is three-tier: 1) Experts have the general knowledge and experience that allows them to use the information that's out there, and avoid obvious mistakes. 2) Experts can travel around specifically observing various companies, and even getting pitches from those looking for investors. 3) There is certain inside information that sometimes a professional will come across.
Relate this to the Mel Kiper's of the world. They are at least at Tier Two, where they are visiting prospects and watching tape. The key advantage most GM's have is certain inside information - mostly about the real (graded) performance, health, and attitude of their own players - not that they are professionals. There's also certain drug test and other NFL Security information they have, which sometimes explains an unexpected slide by a player in a draft.
I believe that a passionate, intelligent person, (like say Mel Kiper), who studies something for 23 years, doing everything a professional would do and more, is going to learn something about it. Really, what magical thing does Ron Wolf's son, who is now a "professional scout" know that Mel Kiper hasn't picked up. Some of the best doctors, attorneys, scientists, artists, and philosophers were not classically trained, but you can bet that they got themselves trained. Oh, and the greatest investor of all time, Warren Buffet, is a non-professionally trained amateur.
So, I believe that if someone raises a reasonable question of draft strategy and value that Ted Thompson should have to answer it, and it shouldn't matter that we haven't run the NE Patriots the last five years. I mean we citizens do elect our President and Representatives, right?
Your thoughts?
PETE DOUGHERTY:
That's an interesting take and an angle I've never looked at before.
You're right that the Mel Kiper's of the world have some value, because they give you an idea of where guys generally rank. And yes, they sometimes get players right on the money. But I've found there to be wide variations between the publications and scouts, and I've also found equally wide variations in players grades among scouts themselves -- from one team to another, and even within one team.
I wouldn't even trust a GM or head college scout to grade other teams' drafts immediately after the draft, because they don't know how they're going to turn out either. All they can offer is an educated guess, and even then there are factors they don't consider.
Teams draft for their own system, and a team that uses zone blocking puts a higher value on Daryn Colledge than a team that doesn't. Also, look at who's getting the top grades for this year: Cleveland.
Well, what if Brady Quinn is mediocre or a bust. All those A grades drop C's or lower pretty quick.
I always point to the Packers' '95 draft. I remember Kiper and several other national experts ripping that up and down, gave Wolf a D or an F if I remember correctly. Turned out to be his best draft.
Yeah, you can criticize strategy, and in the end, that's part of Mike Sherman's downfall. He traded too many picks to move up for guys, and those guys for the most part didn't pan out, so he was blowing two picks on one player who couldn't play.
He was held accountable: he lost his GM job. Thompson will be held accountable also. If he doesn't win, he'll lose his job. But you'd be crazy to fire him today because you didn't like his draft this year.
I defy anyone to say whether this draft was good or bad, and put their money on the line. Would you bet $10,000 that this draft was good or bad? (We'd have to define a good draft and pick a time when the decision has to be made, of course).
You're right, for the NFL teams, they have to pick their stocks today and don't have the benefit of three years' hindsight.
As far as criticizing draft strategy, yeah, this year you probably could criticize Thompson for trading down so much again.
His first two drafts it was understandable, but this year he'll probably be cutting draft picks because the team has so many young players. But I could be eating those words in three years if there's a Dorsey Levens or Adam Timmerman that he drafted with one of those extra picks.
It just seems like trying to hold somebody accountable today for this year's draft is an exercise in futility.
You can say they took a risky approach, or a conservative approach, sure. But it's all just a bunch of blather for two, maybe three years.
Ed Armour
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 4
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 1:10 pm Post subject: 2007 Draft
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Pete, as the Resident Draft Expert do you agree that Adrien Peterson really jumps out as a supreme talent?
Reportedly, Washington was willing to trade its 6th pick overall. According to the draft value chart, we could've sent our 1, 2, & 3 for their 1 & 6.
We could've then drafted Peterson and John Wendling - the athletic SS from Wyoming.
I just feel that Peterson will be an Eric Dickerson type of impact player. I also would have traded our #4 for Randy Moss if that was possible, (and taken 5) Graham CB/RS; 6) Pittman DL; 7A) Allen TE; 7B) Silar LB; 7C) Snelling FB with our other picks for added depth - that's still 7 picks and Moss).
It's ironic that Ron Wolf says that his biggest mistake was passing on Randy Moss because arguably his best #1 pick was Vonnie Holliday the player he chose instead. (Interestingly, Wolf traded for the pick). Holliday still is a good run stuffing DL, but there are guys like him in every draft. Just like there are Harrels, Jacksons, Jones, and Rouses. There are very few Mosses and Petersons.
It's seldom that a team has the ammunition and the opportunity to be bold and acquire a guy like Peterson or Moss.
Heck, we even have a promising DT, Cory Williams, who is as good as gone next year because we drafted Harrel. We also have plenty of depth at the bottom of the roster now; what we don't have is playmakers. Again this year, we'll be releasing good players that other teams will pick up, but who is going to score TD's?
The reason Favre was so upset is that we did not adequately address the #1 problem from last year; in fact, we made it worse by letting Green and Martin go.
Who are fans going to blame if the offense struggles even more - Favre - they're going to say he's getting old.
Of course it takes three years to truly know, but based on strategy and value, do you think the Packers would have been smarter to trade up for Peterson and acquire Randy Moss, or doing what we did?
PETE DOUGHERTY:
I'll make this a quicker answer Ed. I simply don't know if Peterson was worth that price. That's a lot of picks you'd have to give up, so you'd have to be awfully sure, or you've possibly wasted an entire draft. You're right, the impact players are crucial and win games. I agree on Moss, I personally would have done that deal.
But with Peterson's injury history, I'd be really reluctant to give up that much for him.
lou3000
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 22
Location: Seattle, WA
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:15 pm Post subject: LT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Clifton played pretty solidly last year, but it seems like he could easily collapse physically due to all his injuries over the the years. What do you think the team would do if he couldn't play? (for one game and for the long term)
PETE DOUGHERTY:
Short term, I'm guessing they'd move Colledge over from guard, like they did last year.
Long term, great question and something they have to address. They drafted Barbre in the fourth round as a potential left tackle of the future, though he's currently working only at left guard.
They're intrigued by Bourke, who made the team as an undrafted rookie last year. But if Clifton's career were finished tomorrow, they'd have a potentially big problem unless it turned out Colledge could do that job well.
ordanhuber4
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why isnt anyone talking about Marviel Underwood?
All I hear about is if manuel is going to keep his job, and if not is Rouse going to take it -- did we all forget about Underwood? How has he looked in camp, and how is his injury healing?
How has Aaron Rouse looked?
I want everyone to stop being so negative, we missed the playoffs by 1 game last year, and we are only going to be more experianced and healthier -- if our recievers stay healthy, our defense plays as good as it did the last 4 weeks, and maybe we get a pinch more production out of our TEs there is no reason we cant win 10-12 games.
Id love to see all the TT haters jump on the bandwagon =D
PETE DOUGHERTY:
I'm not sure who's forgotten about Underwood -- I know the Packers haven't. But he hasn't practiced yet and won't until training camp because he's still recovering from the ACL. It's just a matter of how well he comes back from the injury. Players seem to come back better and better each year as the surgery and rehabilitation improve.
I'm guessing either he or Rouse will be the starter by the time it's all said and done.
rickusn
Joined: 11 Sep 2006
Posts: 41
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:50 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is TTs supposed "philosphy" of building through the draft and in particular selecting the "best player available" vice "needs" a bit overblown?
As an in-depth analysis of the last three drafts and FA acquisitions cycles would seem to as often as not, at best, to point in the opposite direction.
Also why is it that last offseason it was OK to take a chance on possible(if not certain) Veteran Free Agent defensive starters in Free Agency?**
All but two of the FAs below actually retaining their pre-season starter(As per 2006 Press-Gazette Training Camp Guide) status into the regular season. :
Woodson CB
Pickett DT
Manuel S
Taylor LB(Eventually beaten out by Poppinga.)
Allen DT(Whos failure/disappointment along with the move of Jenkins(2004 FA) to DE were IMHO the prime motivators of the Harrel selection. Based on need not BPA.)
Think about it.
Five new veteran FA starters out of eleven!?!?!?!
So much for committment to build through the draft.
Four veteran pre-TT Holdovers. 2nd year player S Collins plus rookie LB Hawk both needs picks
Hmmmm.
I take it back I dont think TT has ever drafted anything but players for need.
Best Player Available who? When?
Maybe as one writer recently stated if you "qualify" it as(I paraphrase) Best Player Available for a position of NEED.
Not Rodgers he was drafted to replace Favre. For Need. That Brett hasnt retired yet doesnt change that fact.
And I can go on and on and on.
Back to veteran FAs:
Not to mention another LB, White, who was expected at the very least to be the Packers Special Teams Ace.
To be fair the Packers did pick-up a couple of players on offense.:
WR Boerighter a little used player(like WR Gardner in Dec 2005) before coming to the Packers and OL Lucier who was out of footbal in 2005.
The Packers also signed WR Robinson and OL Walter during the season.
Total 2006: 10 players(three starters)
I will mention that the Packers also traded Gaddo for Morency both were beginning their second seasons and dont really fit the FA veteran model or pattern.
Even still those who wish can include Morency in the analysis.
**But this year it has been "verboten" to even suggest the above type of effort for the offense or virtually any FA for that matter.
As CB Walker has been the only signing.
Although this signing can cynically be seen as the major reasoning/justification for no new young help at CB either by rookie draft selection or rookie FA signings.
In the 2005 offseason they picked up two Guards, two Safeties and one LB who were to compete for starting positions if not actually peciled in as starters
In September 2005 they signed TE Lee and LB Thomas( by trade who started many games during the season before struck down by an injury.) The Packers also signed WR Gardner in Decmber 2005.
Total 2005: 8 Players(Two starters for the 2005 season and only TE Lee still with the team.)
Is their not a contradicition between TTs stated "philosphy"'s and actuality?
And no Im not a "TT hater".
Or am I just because I have questions on how he is building the team?
I just think some of the talk by TT and others doesnt match the actions taken.
There seems to be a disconnect and inherent contradictions between the reality of how this team has been built and the vaunted clarity of TTs "philosphy" that has been promoted..
As one NFL analyst recently stated TT(and I paraphrase) believes younger is better.
Does he really or just in certain cases and reasons of his choosing?
Is it for long-term or short-term?
How do you(or better yet TT) explain the defensive Veteran FA makeover of the 2006 off-season? Niot by a build through the draft philopsophy.
So only the offense cant be upgraded by FA veterans under TT's philosophy? Appears so.
And people wonder why Favre was/is frustrated???????????????????
Ill end now because the questions are beginning to breed questions.
Your thoughts?
Thanks for your time and kind consideration of my questions.
Rick
PETE DOUGHERTY:
That's a lot to digest.
I'd guess I'd say that your definition of need is awfully broad. I would suggest the Packers had bigger needs at receiver, for instance, than DT, so if he was drafting for need alone he would have taken Meachem or Bowe.
It's always a combination of the two (need and BPA). A team isn't going to draft a quarterback in the first round if it has Brett Favre in his prime, for instance. So you're right. And yes, Thompson made need picks. I guess the issue pertains mostly to the first round or two. Do you place a higher priority on need? Or a higher priority on BPA?
I'd argue Thompson has put the higher priority on BPA.
The one unknown in all this is how need affects a GM's evaluations. I suspect there's a subconscious element there that can influence grading.
oldman
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 14
Location: Weatherford, TX
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:57 pm Post subject: CEO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just read an article on the Press Gazette website talking about the candidates for the CEO job.
The article listed Mike Reinfeldt, Mike Holmgren, Bruce Allen and Rich McKay as leading candidates.
That's a pretty interesting list. Do you think there is a chance that Mike Holmgren would be interested? How about Mike Reinfeldt?
Thanks for your answering my questions.
PETE DOUGHERTY:
Those guys aren't the leading candidates. They're just obvious possible candidates, or people who at least could be intriguing to the Packers, or in the case of Allen and McKay, people who Ken Herock thought would be good for the job.
Reinfeldt's an obvious candidate because he's worked here and was thought highly of, he's well respected in the league.
I don't know for sure, but I get the sense talking to people who know Reinfeldt that while this is a dream job for him, he's probably unwilling to jump from the job he just took with Tennessee this winter. Maybe they're wrong.
I'm assuming he's a guy the Packers will at least inquire about. Holmgren, don't know if he'd be interested. It wouldn't surprise me if it piqued his curiousity. He'd bring charisma and intelligence to the job, but it sounds to me like the Packers are looking more for someone with extensive administrative experience, which he doesn't have.
I get the feeling this thing is wide open and that they'll vet candidates from front offices around the league.
_________________
No more talk...execution speaks for itself!
maxkrug
Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 36
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:27 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is going on with Bubba Franks?
Has the guy lost a step, or is he essentially the same talent he was before 2006 and just doesn't fit with McCarthy's scheme?
PETE DOUGHERTY:
He wasn't that fast to begin with, and it looks to me like he's lost a step.
patya
Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 9
Location: Gratiot WI
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:32 pm Post subject: Questions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Pete , I thought this was all about questions..Packer team questions..Why do we have to read all these long winded ramblings of people trying to state a point of view that is probably only interesting to the person writing the thing in the first place..
Please kick out all the trash over about 50 to 100 words...Lets get back to questions, not commentary...Bob
Heck, now I forgot my question...Bob
PETE DOUGHERTY:
I'll do my best but want to give everyone his or her say.
_________________
and492
Ron Jeremy
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 4
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:31 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I read somewhere that the Packers are still paying the Lombardi family a certain percentage of their income. If this is true, how did this happen and will they ever have to stop paying?
PETE DOUGHERTY:
I've never heard that and am skeptical that it's true.
Med City
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 2
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:23 am Post subject: Favre and TT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete,
Here is what disturbs me about Ted.
Favre continues to give him one more year and enough notice so a good GM could go out and get established talent and a playmaker or two.
Yet Ted does essentially nothing.
If my aging hall of fame quarterback, who can't do it on his own anymore but can still get it done and be a leader ( aka Elway), kept giving me one more year you can bet I would be stocking the shelves or atleast showing interest in the big Free agent names coming down the wire.
I think Favre thought the same thing and the Moss deal was his last straw.
I respect Favre even more considering his GM's actions or lack there of.
Not having a proven RB to start his final year would sure tell me something.
Time to move on because it sure looks like my organization has!
Ter
Med City
PETE DOUGHERTY:
In my two-bit opinion, they'd be crazy to sell the ranch for ths year.
There just weren't many good free agents available, no one who was going to put them over the top. There was no great running back worth signing, for instance.
But I personally would have been more aggressive about getting Moss. In the end there wasn't that much risk there.
cwood21
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 6
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:46 am Post subject: Hodge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, thanks for chatting.
Has Abdul Hodge hurt his chances for earning the starting MLB spot by being out of minicamps?
I wouldn't think that the minicamps would change coaches opinions on that subject too much, but they certainly would affect them. Anyway, does Hodge still have a shot at being the middle linebacker even with his injury?
Thanks again.
PETE DOUGHERTY:
It hurts him some, mainly if it prevents him from being sharp when training camp starts.
He needs to hit the ground running, as they say, if he's going to force his way into the starting lineup and get them to move Barnett to SSLB. He's got a shot, sure, but at this early stage those odds don't look good.
linebacker
Joined: 27 May 2007
Posts: 4
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:51 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Pete,
How has Brandon Jackson and Aaron Rouse looked?
Do you think that they have a good chance of starting. Also do you think the Packers will have a featured halfback or use the runningback by comittee technique? By the way I think Brandon Jackson is going to be really good. Aaron Rouse looks extremely athletic on film and could be a star in the NFL.
Thanks for answering my questions,
Mickey
PETE DOUGHERTY:[/b
The thing that stands out about Rouse is how big he is for a DB, I'm not sure I've ever seen one that tall and thick. But [b]he'll have to tackle well to win the job and not blow coverages.
Jackson looked small and quick in the one OTA practice reporters were allowed to watch last week.
But so did LeShon Johnson back in the '90s.
The Packers say Jackson's strength is his instincts, and if that's true it will show up when he's in pads and people can tackle him.
_________________
What's that? Playoffs? Don't talk about-- playoffs! You kidding me? Playoffs? I just hope we can win a game!
Favre4ever
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 739
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:11 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete-
The article about candidates for the Packers president job was amazing.
Do you really think that Mike Holmgren could emerge as serious candidate for the job?
Personally, I would love nothing more than for that to happen.
I love listening to Holmgren speak. He has a great PR sense and is endearing to all who know him (and even fans who feel that they know him). He has experience on NFL committees and extensive coaching and front office experience. I would love for him to take over the Green Bay Packers organization. Realistically, in your opinion, do you think this can happen?
PETE DOUGHERTY:
It's an intriguing idea, and you're right about his excellent presence and experience in some NFL circles. It's so early in the process of this search that it's hard to say for sure -- this could take several months at least -- but it sounds to me like the Packers are looking more for someone with extensive administrative experience.
So right now I'd have to say Holmgren would be an unlikely or extremely long-shot candidate
Author Message
kimmer62
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 26
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 2:34 pm Post subject: Chat with Pete Dougherty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dougherty,I was wondering in the OTA's that you guys were able to cover who stood out of the rookies?
PETE DOUGHERTY:
No one stood out among the rookies.
James Jones appears to catch the ball well with his hands rather than letting it get to his body.
Harrell has done only some individual stuff, so there's been nothing to see there.
Clowney is fast but kind of short.
Barbre looks like a pretty good athlete for an offensive lineman.
No one's just jumped out, though.
net
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 46
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 6:08 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A writer this weekend called the NFC North division the "most pathetic" in the NFL.
He labeled the Bears a "good, but unspectacular" team,
the Lions, Vikings and Packers among the league's poorest teams.
He particularly savaged Green Bay, saying they were the weakest 8-8 team, given three humiliating shutouts at home last year and beating only one winning team.
He called Favre washed up, the team has one legit offensive threat in Driver and the defense looked good against weak teams.
He said the Lions will be the one team to watch if the offense can get in tune with Martz. He said the Vikings will continue to boil in turmoil, which puts all the talent they have out of focus.
You buy into any of that?
PETE DOUGHERTY:
Yeah, I buy some of it.
The unknown for me is, just how good was the defense after moving Jenkins to DE? The numbers improved immensely, but three of the final four teams they played were bad on offense, so you wonder how much of that was a factor.
The division isn't very good and it looks like the Vikings probably won't be good this year.
The Packers look like they'll be a pretty decent defense, but they'll need several guys to emerge if they're going to score.
The Lions have some offensive talent, especially after adding Johnson in the draft, but can they get him the ball?
He made good points but might be exaggerating a little. You have to think the Packers will be better early in the year than they were last year, when they were learning a new system and had a new coaching staff.
But the big question is, where are the points going to come from?
For what it's worth, I still think Chicago's a pretty good team. It's a matter of whether they're QB can get much better.
Norvell
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 7
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:20 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete,
Do you believe that AJ Hawk's performance will significantly improve this year?
I thought he had a great first year, but when he was drafted some experts predicted he would be a good but never a pro-bowl caliber player. Also, does Hawk continued to demonstrate the good work ethics that he has been know for in the past? Thanks for your insight.
PETE DOUGHERTY:
He strikes me as a guy that will keep getting better and better -- not one huge jump, just continual improvement.
His upside might be a little better than some of those scouts thought. I've seen or heard nothing to suggest he's anything but football crazy and working as hard as ever.
_________________
Sam
majikmanseven
Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 26
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:22 am Post subject: Pack to look at S Herndon?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete:
3 quick ones...
1. Will TT look at former Seahawk starter Herndon to bring in to shore up our S position? I personally think he would be an upgrade over both manuel and underwood, I believe Herndon was a starter over Manuel and the only reason Manuel started was an injury to Herndon.
2. Any trade rumors? Both Lions and Skins are loaded at HB. Doubt we'd trade with a division rival but Skins? They need pass rushers and LB's...we have KGB and Hodge available... would Skins part with Betts to get those 2?
3. The key to 07 season will be off line...how did you think Colledge, Spitz and Moll looked physically at the OTA's and mini camps?
Thanks
PETE DOUGHERTY:
Herndon's a corner, not a safety. Might be worth a look anyway though.
I've heard no trade rumors.
The three rookie OL looked similar to last year, to be honest with you I didn't see a big difference in any of them physically.
But each of them said they made significant gains in the weight room, for whatever that's worth.
TexasPackerfan
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 41
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:05 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete,
The feedback we hear from McCarthy and Thompson when questioned about the talent level and whether or not we have any "playmekers" is that key positions such as RB, WR, TE, and S will all be "very competitive".
What are your thoughts on this response? Is it not logical that if the talent that we have competing for the starting roles at these key posiitons is not NFL starter level that being competitive with each other means nothing?
Thanks.
PETE DOUGHERTY:
Yes, that's logical. You're right, that's often a euphemism for having a lack of starting talent at a position.
There's probably some truth to that in this situation, or at least some hoping as much as knowing. They're young enough at those spots -especially RB with Jackson and WR with the rookies and Holiday, etc. -- that they're hoping somebody emerges from a competitive situation as a good player.
I've heard that saying a lot over the years I've been covering the team, and much of the time it doesn't happen, they're all just guys. But occasionally somebody jumps out , either in camp or during the season. Guys like Robert Brooks, Brian Williams, Dorsey Levens.
grishke
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 21
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:57 am Post subject: Favre's Status
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete:
Thanks for the chat. With the Super Bowl unlikely this year what is your take on Brett coming back this year, personal goals, love of the game or the money.
It seems the rug was pulled out from underneath him with the R. Moss fiasco. Just curious if you had heard anything about this trade in the off season that nobody knew about
Pete Dougherty:
I'm sure all those things were factors in his return, as long as he felt like he's still a good player.
Being at the top of the NFL record books for TD passes is a big deal, and walking away from $11 million would be tough for anyone. But you get the sense he still loves playing and thinks he's still good also, and that's the one prerequisite.
Not sure what trade you're talking about.
aevansen
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 11
Location: Hastings, MN
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:26 pm Post subject: corners
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Pete-
First off, I'd like to agree with 'patya' and ask posters to stop writing novels instead of questions.
Second, with the uncertainty surrounding our young corners, do you think it's actually somewhat beneficial that Woodson and Harris are skipping voluntary camps so we can see what guys like Blackmon, Dendy and Walker can do with the starters?
We know Charles and Al are solid, but their age worries me, sooner or later one of those guys is going down with an injury and then we're screwed.
Thanks.
PETE DOUGHERTY:
I guess I'd say it's not a particularly big thing that Harris and Woodson aren't there, they're proven pros, and I know Harris, for sure, works hard to stay in shape.
If you're McCarthy, you'd much rather they were at the OTAs, but there is some benefit to getting the young guys valuable reps, sure.
Those nickel and dime jobs are open.
Studmuffin
Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 183
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 2:36 pm Post subject: John Jones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GB Press Gazette said the Packer spot vacated by John Jones is considered to be one of the top jobs in the NFL. This would imply that filling the position would be easier than others because of its coveted status. If this is true, shouldn't we expect to see that position filled rather quickly or is the timing poor based on the time the position became available?
Filling it would be easy but finding the right guy will take some work.
They're starting from scratch, and unless there's an obvious, slam-dunk candidate to hire who's out there and available, they should take their time and make sure they find the right guy. That doesn't necessarily mean a guy who's extremely well known nationally -- it might, but it doesn't necessarily mean it. But because it's an attractive job, they'll have a big pool of candidates from which to pick.
Studmuffin
Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 183
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 2:42 pm Post subject: Player turnover
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Bubba Franks is in the best shape he's been in for years why isn't he breaking into the startering rotation?
From the outside looking in, it would appear the Packers have moved on with him at TE and want to give the younger guys a chance to show what they can do with the starters.
If this is the case, why not do Bubba a favor and release him now to allow him to catch on early with someone else?
He's been a loyal Packer during his time in GB. He was part of the Packer caravan last summer and he's never been a negative distraction although there are early signs he's not taking the demotion very well.
PETE DOUGHERTY:
There's no reason to cut him now, because he might make the roster.
It looks like they're going to give Donald Lee and Humphrey and Alcorn long, hard looks, but Franks still provides a security blanket, and if he comes back with a vengeance he would win back the starting job.
But there's no reason to get rid of him now.
That's a decision for camp.
GBkrzygrl
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 7
Location: Waukesha, WI
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:08 pm Post subject: Koren Robinson's suspension
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is 2 questions actually. Thanks for answering.
What is the process that Koren Robinson has to go through to get re-instated into the league? Is it a long process?
PETE DOUGHERTY:
Sorry, I unintentionally deleted the FB question and answer and can't get it back. My apologies.
Basically, it said Miree is the front-runner but undrafted rookie Chris White from Alabama-Birmingham is intriguing because he's a big guy (240 pounds) who played HB in college and appears to catch well. But I don't know if he can block.
As far as Robinson goes,
I think the process is to keep out of trouble, attend any counseling sessions that are part of his rehah, and then when his suspension is up in October, he has to apply to the commissioner to get re-instated.
_________________
Real women like football too.
eisenhee
Joined: 01 Oct 2006
Posts: 14
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:41 pm Post subject: Mike Reinfeldt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Pete,
Why is the media saying that it would be difficult to hire Mike Reinfeldt away from the Titans?
The move from Vice President and General Manager to Chairman, CEO, and President is a clear vertical move and therefore cannot be blocked by league rule.
Reinfeldt would have much more power as Chairman, CEO, and President of the Packers than he would as Vice President and General Manager of the Titans. Also, Reinfeldt would not have to deal with a meddling owner in Green Bay because of the Packer's unique ownership structure.
If the Packers Executive Committee wants Reinfeldt (and I firmly believe he is the runaway best person for the job), it should not be hard at all to hire him away from the Titans.
PETE DOUGHERTY:
I think you're right about that, I've been asking about it and haven't gotten a clear answer, but you probably are right that Tennessee couldn't block the move.
However, Reinfeldt has a long relationship with Adams, and would he be willing to leave Tennessee after just getting the job as head of football operations this winter? That's the question.
Many guys would not be willing to jump ship so quickly.
kimmer62
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 26
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:38 pm Post subject: Chat with Pete Dougherty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dougherty, Have you heard yet who the Packers will interview for the CEO postion of the Packers?
PETE DOUGHERTY:
Haven't heard, and it looks to me like it could be a long process, a few months at least.
Thanks for all the questions.
June 4, 2007: Pete Dougherty chat transcript
Joined: 28 Jul 2006
Posts: 15
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 4:50 pm Post subject: June 4, 2007: Pete Dougherty chat transcript
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Press-Gazette reporter Pete Dougherty chatted with PackersNews.com readers Monday, June 4.
_________________
Julie Riebe
online editor
Green Bay Press-Gazette
jriebe@greenbaypressgazette.com
Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 4
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 10:57 am Post subject: Right Approach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete,
Some assumptions and a question....
I believe that a great defense can more easily overcome a weak offense than vice-versa.
I think Mike Sherman left the Packers in shambles as far as depth and overall talent.
I think TT is doing the right thing by building a strong defense first since both sides of the ball were equally weak. An offense filled with weapons needs a decent QB but one with a great QB and average weapons is stronger on par.
Given all of these assumptions don't you think that TT approach still gives us a very good chance this year to be a playoff team as long as Brett doesn't try to do too much and give the ball away?
I for one don't want to see us fall back into obscurity like we did in the 70's and 80's for one shot at a SB before Brett retires. I think TT approach allows us to be competitive without him for the long haul. Based on what I have read I'm sure I'm in the minority of Packers fans.
PETE DOUGHERTY:
Hi everyone, let's get started. Yes, it's hard to argue with your points, and at least judging by the e-mail I get you're in the minority, though maybe the people who generally weigh in are the ones mad enough to go to the trouble, whereas a decent amount of people could think he's taking the right approach, so they don't e-mail or as questions as often in chats. I don't know, though, if this will be a playoff team this year. The defense has some talent and theoretically should be better, though those starting corners are getting older. I just don't know if they're going to score enough to win 10 games.
Ed Armour
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 4
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:12 pm Post subject: Draft Questions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Pete, perhaps you are aware that the other reporters refer to you as their "resident draft expert." I have a challenge to a typical draft observation I've read on these chats that I'd like to know your opinion of.
It's all but obligatory to say no draft can be judged for three years. Of course, this is self evident. However, this truism is often used as a defense to any questioning of draft strategy and draft value. Another problem with this truism is that it's not very useful. By analogy, I could tell you what stocks you should have brought three years ago. So what? That information would only be useful in developing a strategy for which stocks you ought to buy today. Now is not only the best time to discuss such strategy, but the only time.
Most investors only have the information compiled by experts to help make their decisions. Draftniks, like Mel Kiper, are universally derided as know-nothing amateurs. Yet, in a recent column by Bob McGinn, he asked several "professional scouts" who was the biggest reach on the drafts first day, and they pretty much came up with the same guys the draftniks would have. This is so every year. More or less, the draftniks' guides are pretty accurate in rating where guys expected to go. There's always a slight variation between the different publication, just like there are on various stock value reports, but there is enough there for consensus.
The advantage of a professional investor is three-tier: 1) Experts have the general knowledge and experience that allows them to use the information that's out there, and avoid obvious mistakes. 2) Experts can travel around specifically observing various companies, and even getting pitches from those looking for investors. 3) There is certain inside information that sometimes a professional will come across.
Relate this to the Mel Kiper's of the world. They are at least at Tier Two, where they are visiting prospects and watching tape. The key advantage most GM's have is certain inside information - mostly about the real (graded) performance, health, and attitude of their own players - not that they are professionals. There's also certain drug test and other NFL Security information they have, which sometimes explains an unexpected slide by a player in a draft.
I believe that a passionate, intelligent person, (like say Mel Kiper), who studies something for 23 years, doing everything a professional would do and more, is going to learn something about it. Really, what magical thing does Ron Wolf's son, who is now a "professional scout" know that Mel Kiper hasn't picked up. Some of the best doctors, attorneys, scientists, artists, and philosophers were not classically trained, but you can bet that they got themselves trained. Oh, and the greatest investor of all time, Warren Buffet, is a non-professionally trained amateur.
So, I believe that if someone raises a reasonable question of draft strategy and value that Ted Thompson should have to answer it, and it shouldn't matter that we haven't run the NE Patriots the last five years. I mean we citizens do elect our President and Representatives, right?
Your thoughts?
PETE DOUGHERTY:
That's an interesting take and an angle I've never looked at before.
You're right that the Mel Kiper's of the world have some value, because they give you an idea of where guys generally rank. And yes, they sometimes get players right on the money. But I've found there to be wide variations between the publications and scouts, and I've also found equally wide variations in players grades among scouts themselves -- from one team to another, and even within one team.
I wouldn't even trust a GM or head college scout to grade other teams' drafts immediately after the draft, because they don't know how they're going to turn out either. All they can offer is an educated guess, and even then there are factors they don't consider.
Teams draft for their own system, and a team that uses zone blocking puts a higher value on Daryn Colledge than a team that doesn't. Also, look at who's getting the top grades for this year: Cleveland.
Well, what if Brady Quinn is mediocre or a bust. All those A grades drop C's or lower pretty quick.
I always point to the Packers' '95 draft. I remember Kiper and several other national experts ripping that up and down, gave Wolf a D or an F if I remember correctly. Turned out to be his best draft.
Yeah, you can criticize strategy, and in the end, that's part of Mike Sherman's downfall. He traded too many picks to move up for guys, and those guys for the most part didn't pan out, so he was blowing two picks on one player who couldn't play.
He was held accountable: he lost his GM job. Thompson will be held accountable also. If he doesn't win, he'll lose his job. But you'd be crazy to fire him today because you didn't like his draft this year.
I defy anyone to say whether this draft was good or bad, and put their money on the line. Would you bet $10,000 that this draft was good or bad? (We'd have to define a good draft and pick a time when the decision has to be made, of course).
You're right, for the NFL teams, they have to pick their stocks today and don't have the benefit of three years' hindsight.
As far as criticizing draft strategy, yeah, this year you probably could criticize Thompson for trading down so much again.
His first two drafts it was understandable, but this year he'll probably be cutting draft picks because the team has so many young players. But I could be eating those words in three years if there's a Dorsey Levens or Adam Timmerman that he drafted with one of those extra picks.
It just seems like trying to hold somebody accountable today for this year's draft is an exercise in futility.
You can say they took a risky approach, or a conservative approach, sure. But it's all just a bunch of blather for two, maybe three years.
Ed Armour
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 4
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 1:10 pm Post subject: 2007 Draft
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Pete, as the Resident Draft Expert do you agree that Adrien Peterson really jumps out as a supreme talent?
Reportedly, Washington was willing to trade its 6th pick overall. According to the draft value chart, we could've sent our 1, 2, & 3 for their 1 & 6.
We could've then drafted Peterson and John Wendling - the athletic SS from Wyoming.
I just feel that Peterson will be an Eric Dickerson type of impact player. I also would have traded our #4 for Randy Moss if that was possible, (and taken 5) Graham CB/RS; 6) Pittman DL; 7A) Allen TE; 7B) Silar LB; 7C) Snelling FB with our other picks for added depth - that's still 7 picks and Moss).
It's ironic that Ron Wolf says that his biggest mistake was passing on Randy Moss because arguably his best #1 pick was Vonnie Holliday the player he chose instead. (Interestingly, Wolf traded for the pick). Holliday still is a good run stuffing DL, but there are guys like him in every draft. Just like there are Harrels, Jacksons, Jones, and Rouses. There are very few Mosses and Petersons.
It's seldom that a team has the ammunition and the opportunity to be bold and acquire a guy like Peterson or Moss.
Heck, we even have a promising DT, Cory Williams, who is as good as gone next year because we drafted Harrel. We also have plenty of depth at the bottom of the roster now; what we don't have is playmakers. Again this year, we'll be releasing good players that other teams will pick up, but who is going to score TD's?
The reason Favre was so upset is that we did not adequately address the #1 problem from last year; in fact, we made it worse by letting Green and Martin go.
Who are fans going to blame if the offense struggles even more - Favre - they're going to say he's getting old.
Of course it takes three years to truly know, but based on strategy and value, do you think the Packers would have been smarter to trade up for Peterson and acquire Randy Moss, or doing what we did?
PETE DOUGHERTY:
I'll make this a quicker answer Ed. I simply don't know if Peterson was worth that price. That's a lot of picks you'd have to give up, so you'd have to be awfully sure, or you've possibly wasted an entire draft. You're right, the impact players are crucial and win games. I agree on Moss, I personally would have done that deal.
But with Peterson's injury history, I'd be really reluctant to give up that much for him.
lou3000
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 22
Location: Seattle, WA
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:15 pm Post subject: LT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Clifton played pretty solidly last year, but it seems like he could easily collapse physically due to all his injuries over the the years. What do you think the team would do if he couldn't play? (for one game and for the long term)
PETE DOUGHERTY:
Short term, I'm guessing they'd move Colledge over from guard, like they did last year.
Long term, great question and something they have to address. They drafted Barbre in the fourth round as a potential left tackle of the future, though he's currently working only at left guard.
They're intrigued by Bourke, who made the team as an undrafted rookie last year. But if Clifton's career were finished tomorrow, they'd have a potentially big problem unless it turned out Colledge could do that job well.
ordanhuber4
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why isnt anyone talking about Marviel Underwood?
All I hear about is if manuel is going to keep his job, and if not is Rouse going to take it -- did we all forget about Underwood? How has he looked in camp, and how is his injury healing?
How has Aaron Rouse looked?
I want everyone to stop being so negative, we missed the playoffs by 1 game last year, and we are only going to be more experianced and healthier -- if our recievers stay healthy, our defense plays as good as it did the last 4 weeks, and maybe we get a pinch more production out of our TEs there is no reason we cant win 10-12 games.
Id love to see all the TT haters jump on the bandwagon =D
PETE DOUGHERTY:
I'm not sure who's forgotten about Underwood -- I know the Packers haven't. But he hasn't practiced yet and won't until training camp because he's still recovering from the ACL. It's just a matter of how well he comes back from the injury. Players seem to come back better and better each year as the surgery and rehabilitation improve.
I'm guessing either he or Rouse will be the starter by the time it's all said and done.
rickusn
Joined: 11 Sep 2006
Posts: 41
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:50 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is TTs supposed "philosphy" of building through the draft and in particular selecting the "best player available" vice "needs" a bit overblown?
As an in-depth analysis of the last three drafts and FA acquisitions cycles would seem to as often as not, at best, to point in the opposite direction.
Also why is it that last offseason it was OK to take a chance on possible(if not certain) Veteran Free Agent defensive starters in Free Agency?**
All but two of the FAs below actually retaining their pre-season starter(As per 2006 Press-Gazette Training Camp Guide) status into the regular season. :
Woodson CB
Pickett DT
Manuel S
Taylor LB(Eventually beaten out by Poppinga.)
Allen DT(Whos failure/disappointment along with the move of Jenkins(2004 FA) to DE were IMHO the prime motivators of the Harrel selection. Based on need not BPA.)
Think about it.
Five new veteran FA starters out of eleven!?!?!?!
So much for committment to build through the draft.
Four veteran pre-TT Holdovers. 2nd year player S Collins plus rookie LB Hawk both needs picks
Hmmmm.
I take it back I dont think TT has ever drafted anything but players for need.
Best Player Available who? When?
Maybe as one writer recently stated if you "qualify" it as(I paraphrase) Best Player Available for a position of NEED.
Not Rodgers he was drafted to replace Favre. For Need. That Brett hasnt retired yet doesnt change that fact.
And I can go on and on and on.
Back to veteran FAs:
Not to mention another LB, White, who was expected at the very least to be the Packers Special Teams Ace.
To be fair the Packers did pick-up a couple of players on offense.:
WR Boerighter a little used player(like WR Gardner in Dec 2005) before coming to the Packers and OL Lucier who was out of footbal in 2005.
The Packers also signed WR Robinson and OL Walter during the season.
Total 2006: 10 players(three starters)
I will mention that the Packers also traded Gaddo for Morency both were beginning their second seasons and dont really fit the FA veteran model or pattern.
Even still those who wish can include Morency in the analysis.
**But this year it has been "verboten" to even suggest the above type of effort for the offense or virtually any FA for that matter.
As CB Walker has been the only signing.
Although this signing can cynically be seen as the major reasoning/justification for no new young help at CB either by rookie draft selection or rookie FA signings.
In the 2005 offseason they picked up two Guards, two Safeties and one LB who were to compete for starting positions if not actually peciled in as starters
In September 2005 they signed TE Lee and LB Thomas( by trade who started many games during the season before struck down by an injury.) The Packers also signed WR Gardner in Decmber 2005.
Total 2005: 8 Players(Two starters for the 2005 season and only TE Lee still with the team.)
Is their not a contradicition between TTs stated "philosphy"'s and actuality?
And no Im not a "TT hater".
Or am I just because I have questions on how he is building the team?
I just think some of the talk by TT and others doesnt match the actions taken.
There seems to be a disconnect and inherent contradictions between the reality of how this team has been built and the vaunted clarity of TTs "philosphy" that has been promoted..
As one NFL analyst recently stated TT(and I paraphrase) believes younger is better.
Does he really or just in certain cases and reasons of his choosing?
Is it for long-term or short-term?
How do you(or better yet TT) explain the defensive Veteran FA makeover of the 2006 off-season? Niot by a build through the draft philopsophy.
So only the offense cant be upgraded by FA veterans under TT's philosophy? Appears so.
And people wonder why Favre was/is frustrated???????????????????
Ill end now because the questions are beginning to breed questions.
Your thoughts?
Thanks for your time and kind consideration of my questions.
Rick
PETE DOUGHERTY:
That's a lot to digest.
I'd guess I'd say that your definition of need is awfully broad. I would suggest the Packers had bigger needs at receiver, for instance, than DT, so if he was drafting for need alone he would have taken Meachem or Bowe.
It's always a combination of the two (need and BPA). A team isn't going to draft a quarterback in the first round if it has Brett Favre in his prime, for instance. So you're right. And yes, Thompson made need picks. I guess the issue pertains mostly to the first round or two. Do you place a higher priority on need? Or a higher priority on BPA?
I'd argue Thompson has put the higher priority on BPA.
The one unknown in all this is how need affects a GM's evaluations. I suspect there's a subconscious element there that can influence grading.
oldman
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 14
Location: Weatherford, TX
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:57 pm Post subject: CEO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just read an article on the Press Gazette website talking about the candidates for the CEO job.
The article listed Mike Reinfeldt, Mike Holmgren, Bruce Allen and Rich McKay as leading candidates.
That's a pretty interesting list. Do you think there is a chance that Mike Holmgren would be interested? How about Mike Reinfeldt?
Thanks for your answering my questions.
PETE DOUGHERTY:
Those guys aren't the leading candidates. They're just obvious possible candidates, or people who at least could be intriguing to the Packers, or in the case of Allen and McKay, people who Ken Herock thought would be good for the job.
Reinfeldt's an obvious candidate because he's worked here and was thought highly of, he's well respected in the league.
I don't know for sure, but I get the sense talking to people who know Reinfeldt that while this is a dream job for him, he's probably unwilling to jump from the job he just took with Tennessee this winter. Maybe they're wrong.
I'm assuming he's a guy the Packers will at least inquire about. Holmgren, don't know if he'd be interested. It wouldn't surprise me if it piqued his curiousity. He'd bring charisma and intelligence to the job, but it sounds to me like the Packers are looking more for someone with extensive administrative experience, which he doesn't have.
I get the feeling this thing is wide open and that they'll vet candidates from front offices around the league.
_________________
No more talk...execution speaks for itself!
maxkrug
Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 36
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:27 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is going on with Bubba Franks?
Has the guy lost a step, or is he essentially the same talent he was before 2006 and just doesn't fit with McCarthy's scheme?
PETE DOUGHERTY:
He wasn't that fast to begin with, and it looks to me like he's lost a step.
patya
Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 9
Location: Gratiot WI
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:32 pm Post subject: Questions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Pete , I thought this was all about questions..Packer team questions..Why do we have to read all these long winded ramblings of people trying to state a point of view that is probably only interesting to the person writing the thing in the first place..
Please kick out all the trash over about 50 to 100 words...Lets get back to questions, not commentary...Bob
Heck, now I forgot my question...Bob
PETE DOUGHERTY:
I'll do my best but want to give everyone his or her say.
_________________
and492
Ron Jeremy
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 4
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:31 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I read somewhere that the Packers are still paying the Lombardi family a certain percentage of their income. If this is true, how did this happen and will they ever have to stop paying?
PETE DOUGHERTY:
I've never heard that and am skeptical that it's true.
Med City
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 2
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:23 am Post subject: Favre and TT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete,
Here is what disturbs me about Ted.
Favre continues to give him one more year and enough notice so a good GM could go out and get established talent and a playmaker or two.
Yet Ted does essentially nothing.
If my aging hall of fame quarterback, who can't do it on his own anymore but can still get it done and be a leader ( aka Elway), kept giving me one more year you can bet I would be stocking the shelves or atleast showing interest in the big Free agent names coming down the wire.
I think Favre thought the same thing and the Moss deal was his last straw.
I respect Favre even more considering his GM's actions or lack there of.
Not having a proven RB to start his final year would sure tell me something.
Time to move on because it sure looks like my organization has!
Ter
Med City
PETE DOUGHERTY:
In my two-bit opinion, they'd be crazy to sell the ranch for ths year.
There just weren't many good free agents available, no one who was going to put them over the top. There was no great running back worth signing, for instance.
But I personally would have been more aggressive about getting Moss. In the end there wasn't that much risk there.
cwood21
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 6
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:46 am Post subject: Hodge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, thanks for chatting.
Has Abdul Hodge hurt his chances for earning the starting MLB spot by being out of minicamps?
I wouldn't think that the minicamps would change coaches opinions on that subject too much, but they certainly would affect them. Anyway, does Hodge still have a shot at being the middle linebacker even with his injury?
Thanks again.
PETE DOUGHERTY:
It hurts him some, mainly if it prevents him from being sharp when training camp starts.
He needs to hit the ground running, as they say, if he's going to force his way into the starting lineup and get them to move Barnett to SSLB. He's got a shot, sure, but at this early stage those odds don't look good.
linebacker
Joined: 27 May 2007
Posts: 4
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:51 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Pete,
How has Brandon Jackson and Aaron Rouse looked?
Do you think that they have a good chance of starting. Also do you think the Packers will have a featured halfback or use the runningback by comittee technique? By the way I think Brandon Jackson is going to be really good. Aaron Rouse looks extremely athletic on film and could be a star in the NFL.
Thanks for answering my questions,
Mickey
PETE DOUGHERTY:[/b
The thing that stands out about Rouse is how big he is for a DB, I'm not sure I've ever seen one that tall and thick. But [b]he'll have to tackle well to win the job and not blow coverages.
Jackson looked small and quick in the one OTA practice reporters were allowed to watch last week.
But so did LeShon Johnson back in the '90s.
The Packers say Jackson's strength is his instincts, and if that's true it will show up when he's in pads and people can tackle him.
_________________
What's that? Playoffs? Don't talk about-- playoffs! You kidding me? Playoffs? I just hope we can win a game!
Favre4ever
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 739
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:11 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete-
The article about candidates for the Packers president job was amazing.
Do you really think that Mike Holmgren could emerge as serious candidate for the job?
Personally, I would love nothing more than for that to happen.
I love listening to Holmgren speak. He has a great PR sense and is endearing to all who know him (and even fans who feel that they know him). He has experience on NFL committees and extensive coaching and front office experience. I would love for him to take over the Green Bay Packers organization. Realistically, in your opinion, do you think this can happen?
PETE DOUGHERTY:
It's an intriguing idea, and you're right about his excellent presence and experience in some NFL circles. It's so early in the process of this search that it's hard to say for sure -- this could take several months at least -- but it sounds to me like the Packers are looking more for someone with extensive administrative experience.
So right now I'd have to say Holmgren would be an unlikely or extremely long-shot candidate
Author Message
kimmer62
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 26
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 2:34 pm Post subject: Chat with Pete Dougherty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dougherty,I was wondering in the OTA's that you guys were able to cover who stood out of the rookies?
PETE DOUGHERTY:
No one stood out among the rookies.
James Jones appears to catch the ball well with his hands rather than letting it get to his body.
Harrell has done only some individual stuff, so there's been nothing to see there.
Clowney is fast but kind of short.
Barbre looks like a pretty good athlete for an offensive lineman.
No one's just jumped out, though.
net
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 46
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 6:08 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A writer this weekend called the NFC North division the "most pathetic" in the NFL.
He labeled the Bears a "good, but unspectacular" team,
the Lions, Vikings and Packers among the league's poorest teams.
He particularly savaged Green Bay, saying they were the weakest 8-8 team, given three humiliating shutouts at home last year and beating only one winning team.
He called Favre washed up, the team has one legit offensive threat in Driver and the defense looked good against weak teams.
He said the Lions will be the one team to watch if the offense can get in tune with Martz. He said the Vikings will continue to boil in turmoil, which puts all the talent they have out of focus.
You buy into any of that?
PETE DOUGHERTY:
Yeah, I buy some of it.
The unknown for me is, just how good was the defense after moving Jenkins to DE? The numbers improved immensely, but three of the final four teams they played were bad on offense, so you wonder how much of that was a factor.
The division isn't very good and it looks like the Vikings probably won't be good this year.
The Packers look like they'll be a pretty decent defense, but they'll need several guys to emerge if they're going to score.
The Lions have some offensive talent, especially after adding Johnson in the draft, but can they get him the ball?
He made good points but might be exaggerating a little. You have to think the Packers will be better early in the year than they were last year, when they were learning a new system and had a new coaching staff.
But the big question is, where are the points going to come from?
For what it's worth, I still think Chicago's a pretty good team. It's a matter of whether they're QB can get much better.
Norvell
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 7
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:20 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete,
Do you believe that AJ Hawk's performance will significantly improve this year?
I thought he had a great first year, but when he was drafted some experts predicted he would be a good but never a pro-bowl caliber player. Also, does Hawk continued to demonstrate the good work ethics that he has been know for in the past? Thanks for your insight.
PETE DOUGHERTY:
He strikes me as a guy that will keep getting better and better -- not one huge jump, just continual improvement.
His upside might be a little better than some of those scouts thought. I've seen or heard nothing to suggest he's anything but football crazy and working as hard as ever.
_________________
Sam
majikmanseven
Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 26
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:22 am Post subject: Pack to look at S Herndon?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete:
3 quick ones...
1. Will TT look at former Seahawk starter Herndon to bring in to shore up our S position? I personally think he would be an upgrade over both manuel and underwood, I believe Herndon was a starter over Manuel and the only reason Manuel started was an injury to Herndon.
2. Any trade rumors? Both Lions and Skins are loaded at HB. Doubt we'd trade with a division rival but Skins? They need pass rushers and LB's...we have KGB and Hodge available... would Skins part with Betts to get those 2?
3. The key to 07 season will be off line...how did you think Colledge, Spitz and Moll looked physically at the OTA's and mini camps?
Thanks
PETE DOUGHERTY:
Herndon's a corner, not a safety. Might be worth a look anyway though.
I've heard no trade rumors.
The three rookie OL looked similar to last year, to be honest with you I didn't see a big difference in any of them physically.
But each of them said they made significant gains in the weight room, for whatever that's worth.
TexasPackerfan
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 41
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:05 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete,
The feedback we hear from McCarthy and Thompson when questioned about the talent level and whether or not we have any "playmekers" is that key positions such as RB, WR, TE, and S will all be "very competitive".
What are your thoughts on this response? Is it not logical that if the talent that we have competing for the starting roles at these key posiitons is not NFL starter level that being competitive with each other means nothing?
Thanks.
PETE DOUGHERTY:
Yes, that's logical. You're right, that's often a euphemism for having a lack of starting talent at a position.
There's probably some truth to that in this situation, or at least some hoping as much as knowing. They're young enough at those spots -especially RB with Jackson and WR with the rookies and Holiday, etc. -- that they're hoping somebody emerges from a competitive situation as a good player.
I've heard that saying a lot over the years I've been covering the team, and much of the time it doesn't happen, they're all just guys. But occasionally somebody jumps out , either in camp or during the season. Guys like Robert Brooks, Brian Williams, Dorsey Levens.
grishke
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 21
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:57 am Post subject: Favre's Status
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete:
Thanks for the chat. With the Super Bowl unlikely this year what is your take on Brett coming back this year, personal goals, love of the game or the money.
It seems the rug was pulled out from underneath him with the R. Moss fiasco. Just curious if you had heard anything about this trade in the off season that nobody knew about
Pete Dougherty:
I'm sure all those things were factors in his return, as long as he felt like he's still a good player.
Being at the top of the NFL record books for TD passes is a big deal, and walking away from $11 million would be tough for anyone. But you get the sense he still loves playing and thinks he's still good also, and that's the one prerequisite.
Not sure what trade you're talking about.
aevansen
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 11
Location: Hastings, MN
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:26 pm Post subject: corners
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Pete-
First off, I'd like to agree with 'patya' and ask posters to stop writing novels instead of questions.
Second, with the uncertainty surrounding our young corners, do you think it's actually somewhat beneficial that Woodson and Harris are skipping voluntary camps so we can see what guys like Blackmon, Dendy and Walker can do with the starters?
We know Charles and Al are solid, but their age worries me, sooner or later one of those guys is going down with an injury and then we're screwed.
Thanks.
PETE DOUGHERTY:
I guess I'd say it's not a particularly big thing that Harris and Woodson aren't there, they're proven pros, and I know Harris, for sure, works hard to stay in shape.
If you're McCarthy, you'd much rather they were at the OTAs, but there is some benefit to getting the young guys valuable reps, sure.
Those nickel and dime jobs are open.
Studmuffin
Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 183
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 2:36 pm Post subject: John Jones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GB Press Gazette said the Packer spot vacated by John Jones is considered to be one of the top jobs in the NFL. This would imply that filling the position would be easier than others because of its coveted status. If this is true, shouldn't we expect to see that position filled rather quickly or is the timing poor based on the time the position became available?
Filling it would be easy but finding the right guy will take some work.
They're starting from scratch, and unless there's an obvious, slam-dunk candidate to hire who's out there and available, they should take their time and make sure they find the right guy. That doesn't necessarily mean a guy who's extremely well known nationally -- it might, but it doesn't necessarily mean it. But because it's an attractive job, they'll have a big pool of candidates from which to pick.
Studmuffin
Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 183
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 2:42 pm Post subject: Player turnover
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Bubba Franks is in the best shape he's been in for years why isn't he breaking into the startering rotation?
From the outside looking in, it would appear the Packers have moved on with him at TE and want to give the younger guys a chance to show what they can do with the starters.
If this is the case, why not do Bubba a favor and release him now to allow him to catch on early with someone else?
He's been a loyal Packer during his time in GB. He was part of the Packer caravan last summer and he's never been a negative distraction although there are early signs he's not taking the demotion very well.
PETE DOUGHERTY:
There's no reason to cut him now, because he might make the roster.
It looks like they're going to give Donald Lee and Humphrey and Alcorn long, hard looks, but Franks still provides a security blanket, and if he comes back with a vengeance he would win back the starting job.
But there's no reason to get rid of him now.
That's a decision for camp.
GBkrzygrl
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 7
Location: Waukesha, WI
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:08 pm Post subject: Koren Robinson's suspension
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is 2 questions actually. Thanks for answering.
What is the process that Koren Robinson has to go through to get re-instated into the league? Is it a long process?
PETE DOUGHERTY:
Sorry, I unintentionally deleted the FB question and answer and can't get it back. My apologies.
Basically, it said Miree is the front-runner but undrafted rookie Chris White from Alabama-Birmingham is intriguing because he's a big guy (240 pounds) who played HB in college and appears to catch well. But I don't know if he can block.
As far as Robinson goes,
I think the process is to keep out of trouble, attend any counseling sessions that are part of his rehah, and then when his suspension is up in October, he has to apply to the commissioner to get re-instated.
_________________
Real women like football too.
eisenhee
Joined: 01 Oct 2006
Posts: 14
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:41 pm Post subject: Mike Reinfeldt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Pete,
Why is the media saying that it would be difficult to hire Mike Reinfeldt away from the Titans?
The move from Vice President and General Manager to Chairman, CEO, and President is a clear vertical move and therefore cannot be blocked by league rule.
Reinfeldt would have much more power as Chairman, CEO, and President of the Packers than he would as Vice President and General Manager of the Titans. Also, Reinfeldt would not have to deal with a meddling owner in Green Bay because of the Packer's unique ownership structure.
If the Packers Executive Committee wants Reinfeldt (and I firmly believe he is the runaway best person for the job), it should not be hard at all to hire him away from the Titans.
PETE DOUGHERTY:
I think you're right about that, I've been asking about it and haven't gotten a clear answer, but you probably are right that Tennessee couldn't block the move.
However, Reinfeldt has a long relationship with Adams, and would he be willing to leave Tennessee after just getting the job as head of football operations this winter? That's the question.
Many guys would not be willing to jump ship so quickly.
kimmer62
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 26
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:38 pm Post subject: Chat with Pete Dougherty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dougherty, Have you heard yet who the Packers will interview for the CEO postion of the Packers?
PETE DOUGHERTY:
Haven't heard, and it looks to me like it could be a long process, a few months at least.
Thanks for all the questions.