motife
05-09-2006, 06:48 PM
Q: Jesse of Milwaukee - What did you think of Rodgers during camp?
A: Cliff Christl - Jesse, you posted first. I thought he had a good camp. He didn't look like the second coming of John Elway. I said this last year. He has the tools to be a starting quarterback in the NFL. His arm is good enough. He can move a little. He's apparently smart. But he has to prove he can play. That he improved from last year to this year in a non-contact practice is a plus. But we won't find out how good -- or bad -- he is until he plays.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Troy of Dallas - Rank the coaches in packer history that you have covered which gave you the best work.( Qoutes, stories ect) I know Mike Sherman Wasnt to colorfull and I have a suspicion that Bart Sterr was the best for what you were looking for. Who were the best? Who were the worst?
A: Cliff Christl - Interesting question. I'd say Forrest Gregg was the most enjoyable to cover. He had a volatile temper and he could usually be goaded into ripping somebody or something with just a simple question. I remember the Packers spent a week training in Oconomowoc in 1987 after losing to Washington, 33-0, in an exhibition game in Madison. On Monday, two days after the game, Gregg said he was done talking about it. As I recall, on Thursday, we were still able to prod him into an harangue about that game. I covered Bart Starr on a regular basis more than any other coach and had numerous run-ins with him. Starr held this philosophy that we were supposed to be cheerleaders and not probe and criticize. Plus, there were a lot of stories to break in the Starr years: Dissension in the ranks, the inside word on his job security, blunders in the draft room, etc. So there always seemed to be something to write about. Dan Devine's last year and my first year on the beat was one of the most tumultuous in team history. Looking back, I wish I had a little more experience. There was a lot to write about, but there also were a lot of stories that went untold because I didn't find out about them until years later. One more thing about Devine: He was the strangest coach I ever coached. But a lot of those stories can't be told in a newspaper or on this website. Lindy Infante was condescending and two-faced with the media. Plus, he never said much. I thought Mike Holmgren handled the media better than anyone. He was the first coach that I covered that never seemed to allow it to be a distraction. I think that maybe was a factor in his success. He also had a knack for leaving you with the impression that he was giving you a great answer. Then you'd go back, review your notes and realize he didn't say anything. I think that was part of his genius and personality and, again, partly why he was so successful. Ray Rhodes was a good guy. I may have criticized him more than any other reporter in the state, and he never said anything or lashed out at me. Mike Sherman's best quality was that he didn't lie. I always felt if he told me something, it was truthful. But he became less quotable over the years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jon Erkkila of Apple Valley, MN - Cliff, I see where Javon Walker is close to signing a gaudy looking deal. Good for him, but I will predict this...coming off his injury and a year of inactivity plus the fact the Jake Plummer/Jay Cutler are throwing to him and not the '04 Brett Favre, I think Javon has had his greatest season. He'll never match his production of 2004 again. (But he might be in the playoffs sooner then the Pack!) Are my odds better then 50/50 in your mind, or worse? I have no ill will toward the guy, but I don't think the Packers are the massive losers in this deal that many are proclaiming. Thanks. Jon
A: Cliff Christl - You might be right. It usually takes a year to come off an ACL. And Walker isn't Terrell Owens. But I'll tell you this: After watching minicamp last week, the Packers have nobody like him. If he had been on the field, he would have stood out maybe more so than any other player on the roster. Walker is at one level and the current Packers' receivers are at another level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Andy Newbold of Bloomington - hey cliff thanks for the the minicamp updates. Just was wondering how bad Bj Sanders looked in camp in your report you hinted that he didnt look that good, but then I read Chris Havels report ( which is pretty bad compared to yours) and he was praising BJ saying how strong his leg looked and that he put on a show at camp. Whats the deal how did he really do?
A: Cliff Christl - They punted away from us, so we couldn't accurately measure his punts. But to me it was obvious that he was inconsistent. Mike McCarthy objected to that description when I raised it with him. But I watched the punters pretty closely and he had a fair number that went off the side of his foot. He boomed some punts, too. I wouldn't say he looked bad. He just looked inconsistent to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Chris Meyerhoff of St Louis - Cliff just got out of rehab had been drinking heavily the last 3 years since the 4th and 26 play and hadnt sober enough to watch the packers since. Anways I pick up a paper the other day and it came to my attention that Whale, Rivera and Flannigan are all gone and now Ross Verba of all people might come in and replace one of them. Should I start drinking again?
A: Cliff Christl - No, but it might be safer to go back to rehab.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeremy Schulthess of Green Bay - Even though it was only a mini-camp, how did Thompson's picks look, specifically AJ Hawk.
A: Cliff Christl - Hawk moved well, practiced hard. But I can't tell much about a linebacker in a minicamp. I'm sure the coaches could tell whether he was taking correct angles to the ball, etc. As I wrote in my minicamp report, I thought Jennings stood out, partly because of his position and the camp being non-contact. I thought Colledge looked good. Will Blakmon caught my eye the last day. Ingle Martin didn't do much for me. I thought maybe Tom Arth, the free agent, looked better. I saw Cory Rodgers drop some balls and catch some others with his body, but he flashed at times. I really didn't get a feel for Spitz or Moll. I think Colledge is a much better athlete. He might bend his knees as naturally as any offensive linemen they've had in many a year. He's raw-boned and really moves well. But strength, or lack of it, could be an issue with him. Again, Hodge is a linebacker. I saw him get back and deflect a Favre pass the first day, but the make or break time for a linebacker is when they don the pads.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff of Minneapolis - What was your overall impression of McCarthy and how he handled camp?? Thompson appears to have more direction now(ie the dead weight of Washington, Whitaker, Barry, will al be history)-- your thoughts please.
A: Cliff Christl - McCarthy kept a pretty low profile. He talked to the quarterbacks, but otherwise pretty much kept his distance. Didn't yell, didn't get involved much with players at other positions. He even said at the end that it was different for him; that he was used to being more involved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ty of Milwaukee - I was pretty happy with the draft and I think our defense looks like it could be tough even with some young linebackers. Obviously we have some weaknesses on offense. Do you think the Packers can or will address the offensive line with the last wave of free agency..? I know we added to the defensive line but what do you think about bringing back Grady Jackson for the right price..?
A: Cliff Christl - I don't see them adding any big name to the offensive line. And I don't see them bringing Jackson back. I'm guessing that they've decided it's time to move on. Players come and go all the time. And unless they're special, it doesn't matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Kenyan of newark, new jersey - What's up Cliff, just 1 quick question, when are the Packers gonna realize that V. Leach is not a good catching FB and get 1 to groom under Henderson? Did he look bad over the weekend and how did AJ Cooper look @ FB?
A: Cliff Christl - Fullback is becoming an obsolete position. And it's another position where you really can't tell much in non-contact practices. Henderson makes some plays as a receiver. But what's needed at that position is a blocker, first and foremost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: bosco of plover - Cliff We are only in mini camp and so much will happen until the season starts so lets lighten the chat up a bit with this question…what locker room pranks were the most creative and funny over the years and who were the participants?
A: Cliff Christl - I really don't remember any. Never really paid attention. And I don't think you see many in the locker room, at least when it's open to reporters. It's a pretty boring place these days.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: roy jamison of eau claire - Who looks to be on the bubble on the offensive line?
A: Cliff Christl - Whitticker probably more so than anybody. But I was shocked on Sunday. He lined up at left tackle, went head-to-head with KGB on one snap in the one-on-one pass blocking drill and held his own. Maybe Klemm or Barry. But I can't see the Packers going with Tony Moll as a backup left tackle. He's a project. Klemm is playing left tackle now. That should work in his favor. The question with Barry is this: Would the Packers dump him after giving him a better contract? Then again, maybe Mike Sherman or Larry Beightol might urge their clubs to trade for him so they can run some U71.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Andrew of Los Angeles - Donnel Washington is just collecting salary without earning it. Mark Roman wants out because he was "disrespected" (justly so because he's a washed-up player). Ahmad Carroll is also clueless on & off the field. Who else out there is a present or potential problem? Ted Thompson should get rid of these cancerous tumors before the whole team get infected.
A: Cliff Christl - Cancerous tumors? You're talking bit players. Yeah, the Packers might dump Roman and Washington. But it's not an issue. Do you work for a large company? Does anybody lose any sleep over the guy who cuts hedges with a bad attitude? As for Carroll, I don't know what you base that opinion on. Is he immature? Sure. You know how many immature players there are in the NFL? You start cutting immature players and you might not have enough to field a team.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ivan Arnsmeier of Plymouth - Summer before last Farve didn't want to look like a stooge so he hired a personal trainer and worked out all the off season. This last summer he hired no trainer and ,as far as we know , did no special work outs. How do you interept that ?
A: Cliff Christl - He looked in shape at the camp. What difference does it make if he hired or didn't hire a personal trainer? How many marathon runners hire personal trainers? Self-motivation is all that matters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Randy of NYC - Much is made of allowing a drafted QB to be mentored by a veteran QB, not be rushed into the action to have his confidence shaken..etc. After a year of this, however, isn't a young QB going to learn as much as he can by this method after one year -- assuming he's sharp and can memorize plays? Does carrying the clipboard and practicing with the second squad for another year do any real good or is he then at the point where only regular season starting experience will help?
A: Cliff Christl - I think a quarterback can benefit from watching and just practicing, but probably not as much so as he would playing. Here's what I think will be Rodgers' biggest challenge? When he replaces Favre, he'll be replacing a legend. The standards will be high. The expectations will be great. How he handles that probably will determine if he's a good NFL quarterback or a bust. He doesn't have Favre's talent so it's going to be difficult for him to duplicate Favre's success; although, as I said, he has the ability to play the position. But what happens if in that first year he struggles, the other players lose confidence in him, start comparing him to Favre in a negative way, etc.? The fans and media will do it, too. But the players matter more. That's what will make or break Rodgers: Will he be able to maintain his confidence and the confidence of his teammates in tough times? So you're not going to get an answer about Rodgers until he becomes the starter and plays under fire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jack Straw of Wichita - Who was bilked worse - the Pack in the Hadl trade, or the Seahawks in the Ahman Green trade? Hadl's price was higher and ultimately proved more costly to his new team, but Vinson contributed absolutely nothing to the Seahawks, who might have been better off just trading Ahman for 'future considerations'. I remember laughing out loud at the trade when I caught wind of it early in ESPN's coverage of the 2000 draft, and I had never even heard of Ahman Green at that point - that's how obvious it was at the time that Freddy Venison's days in the NFL were numbered. Meanwhile, Ahman has gone on to prove himself as a back with rare physical gifts, speed, and pad level, rushing for the sixth-best single season yardage in NFL history, a vastly underrated performance. Have you or anyone else with a press pass ever asked Teddy Boy who in the Seattle personnel department was responsible for getting grifted by Mr. Wolf that day?
A: Cliff Christl - No comparison. The Packers were bilked worse by the Hadl deal. It set them back years. Maybe you're smarter than a lot of the coaches in Green Bay at the time if you thought the Green deal was a steal from the start, but the prevailing opinion at 1265 Lombardi Avenue was that Vinson was the most talented of the three corners drafted in 1999: Edwards and McKenzie being the others. That's what Ron Wolf told me. From Seattle's standpoint, I always assumed that Mike Holmgren wanted to get rid of Green because he was a fumbler. And the Seahawks didn't really lose anything. They drafted Shaun Alexander, a better back, that year. So Green wouldn't have played. And without playing, his market value wouldn't have gone up much. Maybe they could have gotten a third-round pick instead of Vinson, but that would have been about it. Don't get me wrong. The Green deal was a steal for the Packers, one of the best trades in franchise history. But it didn't hurt the Seahawks much. The Hadl deal killed the Packers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bryan of Appleton - With the addition of Woodson and Hawk, is our defense "better" on paper? Also, who is your guess on the third starting linebacker?
A: Cliff Christl - Not only is it better on paper, but I also think it looked faster on the field last weekend. Then again, the Packers probably always look faster on the Hutson Center turf. As for the third linebacker, it could be Taylor, Manning or maybe Hodge. Training camp will determine it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jay of Connecticut - Perhaps this is more of a comment than a question, but I think your column on Mike Sherman's draft strategy missed the mark. I only saw one serious swing for the fences in terms of potentially forsaking the future for the present, and that was trading up for Javon Walker. I think what doomed Sherman as a GM was making too many bad moves with key picks. Here is a list of the fruits of the first three rounds of his drafts: 2005 - Aaron Rodgers, Nick Collins and Terrence Murphy (arguably, his best draft); 2004 - Ahmad Carroll, Joey Thomas, Donnell Washington and BJ Sander (whom he traded up for); 2003 - Nick Barnett and Kenny Peterson; and 2002 - Javon Walker and Marques Anderson. He had twelve first-day draft picks to play with, and only two or three of them (giving Rodgers and Murphy the benefit of the doubt) will have ever played in a Pro Bowl. While it's hard to strike gold drafting later, I don't find that an adequate excuse for how low the productivity of these drafts has been.
A: Cliff Christl - Why do you think he traded up for those defensive linemen? To hit a home run. Also last year's draft wasn't his. I'm not defending Sherman's drafts. But do me a favor, go back and look at the history of the 29th pick. Then also go back and look at the defensive linemen taken in the mid-rounds in Sherman's three years as GM. The statistics are in a recent column I wrote. Sherman's batting average for his number of picks wasn't that bad compared to other teams, particularly those teams that drafted late. Again, go back and research all the other picks in those rounds and see how they've done. Then you could speak with authority on the subject.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: HOPEFULL of WITTENBERG - Three related questions. 1)I noticed that the Packers in the draft seemed to be concentrating on high character and intelligent players. I remember Lombardi's Packers being intelligent types and were assignment sure. Is there an advantage of having intelligent types vs, "dumb jocks" on the team? Of course Max, Fuzzy and the Golden Boy were certainly "characters" in their own right but I don't think they would be into drugs and things like some of the players in the league today. 2)A plus to pass on people with a troubled past even though they are good athletes? 3)And finally, do you agree that if Javonn Walker had stayed besides the chance of being a locker room cancer there also would have been a chance for him to under-achieve? A smart player, he of course was a 6 on the wonderlic test, would have come back and worked hard for a blockbuster season and entered free agency with a lot more bargaining power. He however might have gone through the motions to keep from being injured. Your thoughts.
A: Cliff Christl - Teams are placing more emphasis on character, but I'm also wary when I hear Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy talk about drafting Packer people and high-character guys. That was Bart Starr's modus operandi. I think you need a mix of personalities. It never hurts to have a few crazy guys in the locker room. I thought the makeup of the '85 Bears was ideal: A lot of scary characters on defense, a swashbuckling leader at quarterback and Walter Payton, a high-character, hard-nosed special talent. Or how about the Oakland Raiders of old? It's a violent game; you need some violent people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Lennie Durow of San Diego - Cliff: What does the overall attitude/moral appear to be? Brett mentioned in his news conference that he had respect for Sherman and immediately led into that he liked what Mike had to say and mentioned the philosophy was similar to Holmgrens. From reading it appeared to be positive but I wanted your take on the situation and how it appeared in person. Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - It seemed fine. It seemed fine last year. But, again, it doesn't take a happy team to win. Mike Ditka fostered dissent and won a Super Bowl. Coaching changes, minicamps, all that kind of stuff creates optimism. But that doesn't win you any games.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: DANIEL of MILWAUKEE - HI CLIFF HOW CAN ANYBODY SAY THE PACKERS ARE REBUILDING BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE ALL THE SAME GUYS THAT WE DID HAVE WHEN WE LOST FORTH AND 26 INSTEAD OF WALKER AND THEN U SAID PICK VERNON OVER HAWK LOOK HOW WE LOST WHEN HAD NOTHING BUT OFFENCE BUT NOW WITH HAWK AND BARNETT SIDE BY SIDE WHO'S GOING TO RUN ON US AND WITH WOODSON AND HARRIS SIDE BY SIDE WHO'S GOING TO THROW ON US SO I THINK LOOK FOR THE PACK TO GO TO THE NFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME IF NOT THE SUPERBOWL BECAUSE CHICAGO HAD A FLUKE YEAR LIKE 2001 I ALWAYS THOUGHT WE WERE ONE PLAYER AWAY FROM THE SUPERBOWL AND NOW WE HAVE HAWK AND WOODSON THANK U FOR TAKING MY QUESTION
A: Cliff Christl - Maybe you should buy a program. The Packers have lost one of their three key players from that team, Walker, and may not have another due to injury, Green. They also are without two guards and a center, all of whom have played in a Pro Bowl. They also don't have their best corner (McKenzie) and a Pro Bowl safety (Sharper) from that team.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Terry of Chicago - Cliff, Wondering why the Pack is ignoring the kicking game. Last year, Sander was not only a brutal punter, but he was a brutal holder (making Longwell seem worse). And now even Longwell is gone. They lost some games last year b/c of the kicking game and are sure to this year with the cast of misfits they again have. Really puzzled they didn't address at least one area in later rounds of the draft...especially with all those extra low round picks.
A: Cliff Christl - I haven't checked, so I'm not sure I'm right. But I'd recommend that you go through the rosters of the other 31 teams and add up how many of them have kickers and punters that were non-drafted free agents or rejects from other teams. My guess is that the number is pretty high. Maybe I'm wrong. But what good did it do for Ron Wolf to draft Brett Conway in the third round in 1997? Longwell, a non-drafted free agent already cut by another team, was better. I agree that the Packers better find a competent kicker and punter or they're doomed. But I think most teams find them on the scrapheap. So I wouldn't get too alarmed until September.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: RH of Texas - Cliff- Your article on Thompsons style on building up rather than taking a shot was interesting and probably accurate, but there is a huge difference in "philosophy" between the Thompson team and the Sherman team. Exluding Joe Johnson who did look like a good signing at the time, Thompson seems to want tough smart guys who are football players and he also seems to have a strong belief in defense. Sherman's first major decision was to hire Ed Donatell which was a joke and even by your own writing, Donatell is somewhat of a phony. Disasterous choice. Andy Reid's pick by contrast was a real DC. When he replaced the 2nd worst DC cooridinator with the absolute worst one in Bob Slowik, that was absolute proof Sherman just didn't get it. And to make sure we all knew just how unimportant Sherman considered defense, he traded up in the 3rd round to get a punter. Those three single actions defined the Sherman era. On top of that Sherman was very casual with draft picks. (Marques Anderson for a 4th which got traded right away for another joke player) Thompson radiates the fact he has principles and adheres to them. Without ever seeing a practice or being around the team, I listened to the McCarthy audio and when asked about if Washingtons being out of shape was a problem, the short crisp answer was "it's not a positive." Sherman never answered questions like that directly. He seemed to be all over the road in everything. I know you win with talent at the end of the day, but clearly the mindset and approach has to be night and day different from Sherman's and it would seem to be a positive. I know you aren't a fan, but from your view doesn't it seem to be simply a better run team topto bottom than before. I don't question Sherman's work ethic or organizational skills, but he just didn't seem to be able to translate the work into a confident cohesive plan.
A: Cliff Christl - I wrote about the draft and you're addressing an entirely different subject. I agree Sherman hired two lightweights as his first two defensive coordinators. And his offensive coordinator wasn't anything special either. Those decisions probably cost him more than any other. But you're dead wrong about Sherman not ever giving direct or critical answers. He did it more than most coaches, I thought. Like all coaches, he was evasive at times. McCarthy was like that this weekend. In fact, I was surprised at how guarded he was. I don't say that as a criticism. It's just the way coaches are. And to spend any time dissecting it is a waste.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tom of Wausau - Wow, what kind of an ego do you have to hold a chat up against one that the Packers coach is doing?
A: Cliff Christl - Maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment. If that's so, my ratings probably will compare to those shows opposite American Idol or NHL games.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: APJ of NYC - I know we don't have much to go on, but what is your general opinion of Aaron Rodgers? I still have no clue if he has the physical tools, but I'm impressed with his mental approach in that he seems to have the right work ethic and attitude. Do you have any indication that he is "the guy"? Also, I read that he was up to 228 lbs but he said he was in the best shape of his life. Is he really that big?
A: Cliff Christl - He has the tools to be a good quarterback, but that doesn't guarantee he'll be one. He didn't look 228 so it's probably good weight. Having a good attitude and work ethic is a good thing. But what will be more important is how he handles pressure, interacts with his teammates, etc. after he becomes the starter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Diggity of Santa Fe - Sounds like Greg Jennings made a positive first impression. I know he's under six feet tall, but does he have an NFL body? I'm a big fan of Donald Driver, but I'm always concerned with the number of shots he takes since he's not all that big. Robert Brooks had a smaller type of body too, and I think it really shortened his career. Does Jennings look like he can take the pounding that receivers take particularly in the West Coast offense?
A: Cliff Christl - I think he has an NFL body. He looked bigger than I expected. Let me make one thing clear. I don't think he has supertstar ability. But I could see him being a very good No. 2 or No. 3 receiver in the NFL. He looks like a natural. He's quick in and out of his cuts. He seems to have excellent hands. I'm guessing he has some run after the catch ability. But he doesn't have Terrell Owens or Randy Moss or Javon Walker size. I don't see his stature as a problem in terms of durability, but it might prevent him from being a Pro Bowl receiver.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Fats of Pleasanton, Ca - Hi Cliff, I know stats are only a part of the truth, but last year's defense seemed to be pretty good. It was not an elite defense, but it seemed to be pretty good at everything except maybe creating turnovers. With the improvements in the secondary, and d-line from free agency and from linebacker in the draft, how good could the defense be this year?
A: Cliff Christl - Good, not great. I thought Woodson looked good in camp, maybe the best athlete on a team where there aren't many, if any, players that make you go wow. Keep in mind that Manuel won a starting job in Seattle only because of an injury and Pickett was never anythng special in St. Louis. And Hawk has to prove himself. As a linebacker, maybe he wasn't going to jump out in a minicamp and he didn't. You had to look to find him. My experience watching practice for 30 some years is that great players just jump out at you. The Loftons. The Ted Hendricks. The Favres. Then again, maybe Hawk will do that in training camp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Cliff Jr. of Milwaukee - I'll admit that I'm wrong as much as the next guy in my assessment of players, but one that I had right from day one is Donnell Washington. The guy has always been and always will be a zero. I remember Ozzie Newsome being quoted before the draft saying something to the effect of "somebody call me when this guy actually makes a play." I don't care what kind of potential he has, if he's acting like he doesn't care, shouldn't they cut him NOW and make a statement that his approach to the game will not be tolerated?
A: Cliff Christl - He should have been cut in training camp a year ago. He did nothing last summer to win a job.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: kwed of dubuque - Cliff, I get excited when I read your obvservations about mini-camp. I like to hear both the good and bad. My question--In your mind, is Gado better than Green at this point? If we get the green of last year, do you believe he holds off Gado? Also, I was very disappointed to hear that hawkins didn't jump out in minicamp. Do you still like him?
A: Cliff Christl - I'll be honest. I didn't watch Hawkins much. Gado looked good. But I have no idea about Green. I think the Packers are counting on him and I think that's a mistake. I think if he comes back it's a bonus, but you don't plan around it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff of Arlington Heights - There was a lot of talk after the minicamp about the improvement of Aaron Rogers. I'm confident that he's not an Elway, Marino, or Favre, but does Rogers look like a legit NFL starting QB? Could he be a Hasselbeck or Brad Johnson, both non-HOF QB's but each having played in recent Super Bowls?
A: Cliff Christl - Sure. He probably has more ability than Hasselbeck, but that might be the kind of ceiling he has.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Norm of Falls Church, VA - It seems to me the better the player, the more frequent his special plays are, but also extrordinarily bad plays are more likely with a team's weak links. The great catch could also be the CB blowing the coverage; the big run could be a poor angle taken by the S; the sack the result of the OL loosing balance; ect. Assuming for a moment that this flip-side of your frequently sited star player effect, how well do you think the Packers have addressed their critical weaknesses (Woodson-Carrol).
A: Cliff Christl - Great point. Playmakers are the most valued of all in the NFL. But it'll kill you just the same to have starters who are less than adequate. Remember the '83 Packers? They had a Super Bowl offense and stiffs who just killed them running around on defense. Those are the two things that led to 4-12 last year. They lost two of their three playmakers, Walker and Green; and they were playing with roadkill at guard, wide receiver, running back at times, linebacker and in the secondary. I think they had worse starters than Carroll, but maybe nobody worse at a position as important as corner. Woodson should be an upgrade.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John of Wausau - Any later round draft picks or free agents that have stood out at the minicamp, other than the obvious top 3 or 4 guys?
A: Cliff Christl - The two that caught my eye were safety Tra Boger and running back Arliss Beach. I don't know if Beach is fast enough, but he's a natural runner. I thought the free agent wide receivers looked good, but I don't know if any one stood out. Ruvell Martin caught my eye a few times, but maybe that was because he was bigger than everybody else. But, as I recall, he made a great, diving catch on a deep ball.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: The Glass is half full of Denver - Cliff, OK, the Packers defense wasn't bad last year. They have improved 4 positions on defense and addressed their weakest part. If one of the lineman and one receiver the Packers drafted is good enough to be a starter, their offense has to be better, right? So are the Packers really that far away from 9-7?
A: Cliff Christl - At what four positions have they improved themselves on defense? Woodson over Carroll is one. Hawk over Robert Thomas is another. Mark Roman beat out Marquand Manuel in Cincinnati. So is that a given that Manuel is better? And Pickett played better last year in St. Louis, but was a disappointment before that. Just look at his signing bonus. Every team in the league is looking for big bodies in the middle on defense. If he was that good, he would have been swamped with offers. It always amuses me when I get comments criticizing the Packer drafts; but then when they sign somebody from another team that maybe didn't fulfill his promise, it's a great move. In 2001, the Rams drafted defensive tackle Damione Lewis, 12th; and Pickett, 29th. In 2003, they selected defensive tackle Jimmy Kennedy, 12th. If the Packers would made those picks, they'd have been vilified. You can't tell much about defensive tackles in a minicamp. But I think Pickett's like Colin Cole and Corey Williams: All good solid players to use as part of a rotation. But is he a big upgrade? Count me as a skeptic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Andy of Stevens Point - Why do you suppose the Packers have no interest in re-signing Grady Jackson? Does he want too much money? Does he have a poor attitude? I thought he was a pretty good player last year.
A: Cliff Christl - Because it's time to move on and that's what I'm going to do after this question. He's overweight, which makes him an injury risk. He was unhappy with his contract, so he's going to be just as unhappy signing for minimum, which isn't that big of deal except that it probably wouldn't give him any incentive to get in better shape. But the Packers probably are just tired of dealing with him and his money situation. Plus, it's a young man's game. Get rid of Jackson and you give opportunity to the Coles, the Picketts, the Williamses. What did Ron Wolf say? Cemeteries are filled with people who thought they were irreplaceable. In essence, very few people are. Vince Lombardi might have been. Brett Favre might be. Grady Jackson hardly falls into that category. Nor does yours truly.
A: Cliff Christl - Jesse, you posted first. I thought he had a good camp. He didn't look like the second coming of John Elway. I said this last year. He has the tools to be a starting quarterback in the NFL. His arm is good enough. He can move a little. He's apparently smart. But he has to prove he can play. That he improved from last year to this year in a non-contact practice is a plus. But we won't find out how good -- or bad -- he is until he plays.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Troy of Dallas - Rank the coaches in packer history that you have covered which gave you the best work.( Qoutes, stories ect) I know Mike Sherman Wasnt to colorfull and I have a suspicion that Bart Sterr was the best for what you were looking for. Who were the best? Who were the worst?
A: Cliff Christl - Interesting question. I'd say Forrest Gregg was the most enjoyable to cover. He had a volatile temper and he could usually be goaded into ripping somebody or something with just a simple question. I remember the Packers spent a week training in Oconomowoc in 1987 after losing to Washington, 33-0, in an exhibition game in Madison. On Monday, two days after the game, Gregg said he was done talking about it. As I recall, on Thursday, we were still able to prod him into an harangue about that game. I covered Bart Starr on a regular basis more than any other coach and had numerous run-ins with him. Starr held this philosophy that we were supposed to be cheerleaders and not probe and criticize. Plus, there were a lot of stories to break in the Starr years: Dissension in the ranks, the inside word on his job security, blunders in the draft room, etc. So there always seemed to be something to write about. Dan Devine's last year and my first year on the beat was one of the most tumultuous in team history. Looking back, I wish I had a little more experience. There was a lot to write about, but there also were a lot of stories that went untold because I didn't find out about them until years later. One more thing about Devine: He was the strangest coach I ever coached. But a lot of those stories can't be told in a newspaper or on this website. Lindy Infante was condescending and two-faced with the media. Plus, he never said much. I thought Mike Holmgren handled the media better than anyone. He was the first coach that I covered that never seemed to allow it to be a distraction. I think that maybe was a factor in his success. He also had a knack for leaving you with the impression that he was giving you a great answer. Then you'd go back, review your notes and realize he didn't say anything. I think that was part of his genius and personality and, again, partly why he was so successful. Ray Rhodes was a good guy. I may have criticized him more than any other reporter in the state, and he never said anything or lashed out at me. Mike Sherman's best quality was that he didn't lie. I always felt if he told me something, it was truthful. But he became less quotable over the years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jon Erkkila of Apple Valley, MN - Cliff, I see where Javon Walker is close to signing a gaudy looking deal. Good for him, but I will predict this...coming off his injury and a year of inactivity plus the fact the Jake Plummer/Jay Cutler are throwing to him and not the '04 Brett Favre, I think Javon has had his greatest season. He'll never match his production of 2004 again. (But he might be in the playoffs sooner then the Pack!) Are my odds better then 50/50 in your mind, or worse? I have no ill will toward the guy, but I don't think the Packers are the massive losers in this deal that many are proclaiming. Thanks. Jon
A: Cliff Christl - You might be right. It usually takes a year to come off an ACL. And Walker isn't Terrell Owens. But I'll tell you this: After watching minicamp last week, the Packers have nobody like him. If he had been on the field, he would have stood out maybe more so than any other player on the roster. Walker is at one level and the current Packers' receivers are at another level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Andy Newbold of Bloomington - hey cliff thanks for the the minicamp updates. Just was wondering how bad Bj Sanders looked in camp in your report you hinted that he didnt look that good, but then I read Chris Havels report ( which is pretty bad compared to yours) and he was praising BJ saying how strong his leg looked and that he put on a show at camp. Whats the deal how did he really do?
A: Cliff Christl - They punted away from us, so we couldn't accurately measure his punts. But to me it was obvious that he was inconsistent. Mike McCarthy objected to that description when I raised it with him. But I watched the punters pretty closely and he had a fair number that went off the side of his foot. He boomed some punts, too. I wouldn't say he looked bad. He just looked inconsistent to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Chris Meyerhoff of St Louis - Cliff just got out of rehab had been drinking heavily the last 3 years since the 4th and 26 play and hadnt sober enough to watch the packers since. Anways I pick up a paper the other day and it came to my attention that Whale, Rivera and Flannigan are all gone and now Ross Verba of all people might come in and replace one of them. Should I start drinking again?
A: Cliff Christl - No, but it might be safer to go back to rehab.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeremy Schulthess of Green Bay - Even though it was only a mini-camp, how did Thompson's picks look, specifically AJ Hawk.
A: Cliff Christl - Hawk moved well, practiced hard. But I can't tell much about a linebacker in a minicamp. I'm sure the coaches could tell whether he was taking correct angles to the ball, etc. As I wrote in my minicamp report, I thought Jennings stood out, partly because of his position and the camp being non-contact. I thought Colledge looked good. Will Blakmon caught my eye the last day. Ingle Martin didn't do much for me. I thought maybe Tom Arth, the free agent, looked better. I saw Cory Rodgers drop some balls and catch some others with his body, but he flashed at times. I really didn't get a feel for Spitz or Moll. I think Colledge is a much better athlete. He might bend his knees as naturally as any offensive linemen they've had in many a year. He's raw-boned and really moves well. But strength, or lack of it, could be an issue with him. Again, Hodge is a linebacker. I saw him get back and deflect a Favre pass the first day, but the make or break time for a linebacker is when they don the pads.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff of Minneapolis - What was your overall impression of McCarthy and how he handled camp?? Thompson appears to have more direction now(ie the dead weight of Washington, Whitaker, Barry, will al be history)-- your thoughts please.
A: Cliff Christl - McCarthy kept a pretty low profile. He talked to the quarterbacks, but otherwise pretty much kept his distance. Didn't yell, didn't get involved much with players at other positions. He even said at the end that it was different for him; that he was used to being more involved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ty of Milwaukee - I was pretty happy with the draft and I think our defense looks like it could be tough even with some young linebackers. Obviously we have some weaknesses on offense. Do you think the Packers can or will address the offensive line with the last wave of free agency..? I know we added to the defensive line but what do you think about bringing back Grady Jackson for the right price..?
A: Cliff Christl - I don't see them adding any big name to the offensive line. And I don't see them bringing Jackson back. I'm guessing that they've decided it's time to move on. Players come and go all the time. And unless they're special, it doesn't matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Kenyan of newark, new jersey - What's up Cliff, just 1 quick question, when are the Packers gonna realize that V. Leach is not a good catching FB and get 1 to groom under Henderson? Did he look bad over the weekend and how did AJ Cooper look @ FB?
A: Cliff Christl - Fullback is becoming an obsolete position. And it's another position where you really can't tell much in non-contact practices. Henderson makes some plays as a receiver. But what's needed at that position is a blocker, first and foremost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: bosco of plover - Cliff We are only in mini camp and so much will happen until the season starts so lets lighten the chat up a bit with this question…what locker room pranks were the most creative and funny over the years and who were the participants?
A: Cliff Christl - I really don't remember any. Never really paid attention. And I don't think you see many in the locker room, at least when it's open to reporters. It's a pretty boring place these days.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: roy jamison of eau claire - Who looks to be on the bubble on the offensive line?
A: Cliff Christl - Whitticker probably more so than anybody. But I was shocked on Sunday. He lined up at left tackle, went head-to-head with KGB on one snap in the one-on-one pass blocking drill and held his own. Maybe Klemm or Barry. But I can't see the Packers going with Tony Moll as a backup left tackle. He's a project. Klemm is playing left tackle now. That should work in his favor. The question with Barry is this: Would the Packers dump him after giving him a better contract? Then again, maybe Mike Sherman or Larry Beightol might urge their clubs to trade for him so they can run some U71.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Andrew of Los Angeles - Donnel Washington is just collecting salary without earning it. Mark Roman wants out because he was "disrespected" (justly so because he's a washed-up player). Ahmad Carroll is also clueless on & off the field. Who else out there is a present or potential problem? Ted Thompson should get rid of these cancerous tumors before the whole team get infected.
A: Cliff Christl - Cancerous tumors? You're talking bit players. Yeah, the Packers might dump Roman and Washington. But it's not an issue. Do you work for a large company? Does anybody lose any sleep over the guy who cuts hedges with a bad attitude? As for Carroll, I don't know what you base that opinion on. Is he immature? Sure. You know how many immature players there are in the NFL? You start cutting immature players and you might not have enough to field a team.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ivan Arnsmeier of Plymouth - Summer before last Farve didn't want to look like a stooge so he hired a personal trainer and worked out all the off season. This last summer he hired no trainer and ,as far as we know , did no special work outs. How do you interept that ?
A: Cliff Christl - He looked in shape at the camp. What difference does it make if he hired or didn't hire a personal trainer? How many marathon runners hire personal trainers? Self-motivation is all that matters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Randy of NYC - Much is made of allowing a drafted QB to be mentored by a veteran QB, not be rushed into the action to have his confidence shaken..etc. After a year of this, however, isn't a young QB going to learn as much as he can by this method after one year -- assuming he's sharp and can memorize plays? Does carrying the clipboard and practicing with the second squad for another year do any real good or is he then at the point where only regular season starting experience will help?
A: Cliff Christl - I think a quarterback can benefit from watching and just practicing, but probably not as much so as he would playing. Here's what I think will be Rodgers' biggest challenge? When he replaces Favre, he'll be replacing a legend. The standards will be high. The expectations will be great. How he handles that probably will determine if he's a good NFL quarterback or a bust. He doesn't have Favre's talent so it's going to be difficult for him to duplicate Favre's success; although, as I said, he has the ability to play the position. But what happens if in that first year he struggles, the other players lose confidence in him, start comparing him to Favre in a negative way, etc.? The fans and media will do it, too. But the players matter more. That's what will make or break Rodgers: Will he be able to maintain his confidence and the confidence of his teammates in tough times? So you're not going to get an answer about Rodgers until he becomes the starter and plays under fire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jack Straw of Wichita - Who was bilked worse - the Pack in the Hadl trade, or the Seahawks in the Ahman Green trade? Hadl's price was higher and ultimately proved more costly to his new team, but Vinson contributed absolutely nothing to the Seahawks, who might have been better off just trading Ahman for 'future considerations'. I remember laughing out loud at the trade when I caught wind of it early in ESPN's coverage of the 2000 draft, and I had never even heard of Ahman Green at that point - that's how obvious it was at the time that Freddy Venison's days in the NFL were numbered. Meanwhile, Ahman has gone on to prove himself as a back with rare physical gifts, speed, and pad level, rushing for the sixth-best single season yardage in NFL history, a vastly underrated performance. Have you or anyone else with a press pass ever asked Teddy Boy who in the Seattle personnel department was responsible for getting grifted by Mr. Wolf that day?
A: Cliff Christl - No comparison. The Packers were bilked worse by the Hadl deal. It set them back years. Maybe you're smarter than a lot of the coaches in Green Bay at the time if you thought the Green deal was a steal from the start, but the prevailing opinion at 1265 Lombardi Avenue was that Vinson was the most talented of the three corners drafted in 1999: Edwards and McKenzie being the others. That's what Ron Wolf told me. From Seattle's standpoint, I always assumed that Mike Holmgren wanted to get rid of Green because he was a fumbler. And the Seahawks didn't really lose anything. They drafted Shaun Alexander, a better back, that year. So Green wouldn't have played. And without playing, his market value wouldn't have gone up much. Maybe they could have gotten a third-round pick instead of Vinson, but that would have been about it. Don't get me wrong. The Green deal was a steal for the Packers, one of the best trades in franchise history. But it didn't hurt the Seahawks much. The Hadl deal killed the Packers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bryan of Appleton - With the addition of Woodson and Hawk, is our defense "better" on paper? Also, who is your guess on the third starting linebacker?
A: Cliff Christl - Not only is it better on paper, but I also think it looked faster on the field last weekend. Then again, the Packers probably always look faster on the Hutson Center turf. As for the third linebacker, it could be Taylor, Manning or maybe Hodge. Training camp will determine it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jay of Connecticut - Perhaps this is more of a comment than a question, but I think your column on Mike Sherman's draft strategy missed the mark. I only saw one serious swing for the fences in terms of potentially forsaking the future for the present, and that was trading up for Javon Walker. I think what doomed Sherman as a GM was making too many bad moves with key picks. Here is a list of the fruits of the first three rounds of his drafts: 2005 - Aaron Rodgers, Nick Collins and Terrence Murphy (arguably, his best draft); 2004 - Ahmad Carroll, Joey Thomas, Donnell Washington and BJ Sander (whom he traded up for); 2003 - Nick Barnett and Kenny Peterson; and 2002 - Javon Walker and Marques Anderson. He had twelve first-day draft picks to play with, and only two or three of them (giving Rodgers and Murphy the benefit of the doubt) will have ever played in a Pro Bowl. While it's hard to strike gold drafting later, I don't find that an adequate excuse for how low the productivity of these drafts has been.
A: Cliff Christl - Why do you think he traded up for those defensive linemen? To hit a home run. Also last year's draft wasn't his. I'm not defending Sherman's drafts. But do me a favor, go back and look at the history of the 29th pick. Then also go back and look at the defensive linemen taken in the mid-rounds in Sherman's three years as GM. The statistics are in a recent column I wrote. Sherman's batting average for his number of picks wasn't that bad compared to other teams, particularly those teams that drafted late. Again, go back and research all the other picks in those rounds and see how they've done. Then you could speak with authority on the subject.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: HOPEFULL of WITTENBERG - Three related questions. 1)I noticed that the Packers in the draft seemed to be concentrating on high character and intelligent players. I remember Lombardi's Packers being intelligent types and were assignment sure. Is there an advantage of having intelligent types vs, "dumb jocks" on the team? Of course Max, Fuzzy and the Golden Boy were certainly "characters" in their own right but I don't think they would be into drugs and things like some of the players in the league today. 2)A plus to pass on people with a troubled past even though they are good athletes? 3)And finally, do you agree that if Javonn Walker had stayed besides the chance of being a locker room cancer there also would have been a chance for him to under-achieve? A smart player, he of course was a 6 on the wonderlic test, would have come back and worked hard for a blockbuster season and entered free agency with a lot more bargaining power. He however might have gone through the motions to keep from being injured. Your thoughts.
A: Cliff Christl - Teams are placing more emphasis on character, but I'm also wary when I hear Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy talk about drafting Packer people and high-character guys. That was Bart Starr's modus operandi. I think you need a mix of personalities. It never hurts to have a few crazy guys in the locker room. I thought the makeup of the '85 Bears was ideal: A lot of scary characters on defense, a swashbuckling leader at quarterback and Walter Payton, a high-character, hard-nosed special talent. Or how about the Oakland Raiders of old? It's a violent game; you need some violent people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Lennie Durow of San Diego - Cliff: What does the overall attitude/moral appear to be? Brett mentioned in his news conference that he had respect for Sherman and immediately led into that he liked what Mike had to say and mentioned the philosophy was similar to Holmgrens. From reading it appeared to be positive but I wanted your take on the situation and how it appeared in person. Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - It seemed fine. It seemed fine last year. But, again, it doesn't take a happy team to win. Mike Ditka fostered dissent and won a Super Bowl. Coaching changes, minicamps, all that kind of stuff creates optimism. But that doesn't win you any games.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: DANIEL of MILWAUKEE - HI CLIFF HOW CAN ANYBODY SAY THE PACKERS ARE REBUILDING BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE ALL THE SAME GUYS THAT WE DID HAVE WHEN WE LOST FORTH AND 26 INSTEAD OF WALKER AND THEN U SAID PICK VERNON OVER HAWK LOOK HOW WE LOST WHEN HAD NOTHING BUT OFFENCE BUT NOW WITH HAWK AND BARNETT SIDE BY SIDE WHO'S GOING TO RUN ON US AND WITH WOODSON AND HARRIS SIDE BY SIDE WHO'S GOING TO THROW ON US SO I THINK LOOK FOR THE PACK TO GO TO THE NFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME IF NOT THE SUPERBOWL BECAUSE CHICAGO HAD A FLUKE YEAR LIKE 2001 I ALWAYS THOUGHT WE WERE ONE PLAYER AWAY FROM THE SUPERBOWL AND NOW WE HAVE HAWK AND WOODSON THANK U FOR TAKING MY QUESTION
A: Cliff Christl - Maybe you should buy a program. The Packers have lost one of their three key players from that team, Walker, and may not have another due to injury, Green. They also are without two guards and a center, all of whom have played in a Pro Bowl. They also don't have their best corner (McKenzie) and a Pro Bowl safety (Sharper) from that team.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Terry of Chicago - Cliff, Wondering why the Pack is ignoring the kicking game. Last year, Sander was not only a brutal punter, but he was a brutal holder (making Longwell seem worse). And now even Longwell is gone. They lost some games last year b/c of the kicking game and are sure to this year with the cast of misfits they again have. Really puzzled they didn't address at least one area in later rounds of the draft...especially with all those extra low round picks.
A: Cliff Christl - I haven't checked, so I'm not sure I'm right. But I'd recommend that you go through the rosters of the other 31 teams and add up how many of them have kickers and punters that were non-drafted free agents or rejects from other teams. My guess is that the number is pretty high. Maybe I'm wrong. But what good did it do for Ron Wolf to draft Brett Conway in the third round in 1997? Longwell, a non-drafted free agent already cut by another team, was better. I agree that the Packers better find a competent kicker and punter or they're doomed. But I think most teams find them on the scrapheap. So I wouldn't get too alarmed until September.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: RH of Texas - Cliff- Your article on Thompsons style on building up rather than taking a shot was interesting and probably accurate, but there is a huge difference in "philosophy" between the Thompson team and the Sherman team. Exluding Joe Johnson who did look like a good signing at the time, Thompson seems to want tough smart guys who are football players and he also seems to have a strong belief in defense. Sherman's first major decision was to hire Ed Donatell which was a joke and even by your own writing, Donatell is somewhat of a phony. Disasterous choice. Andy Reid's pick by contrast was a real DC. When he replaced the 2nd worst DC cooridinator with the absolute worst one in Bob Slowik, that was absolute proof Sherman just didn't get it. And to make sure we all knew just how unimportant Sherman considered defense, he traded up in the 3rd round to get a punter. Those three single actions defined the Sherman era. On top of that Sherman was very casual with draft picks. (Marques Anderson for a 4th which got traded right away for another joke player) Thompson radiates the fact he has principles and adheres to them. Without ever seeing a practice or being around the team, I listened to the McCarthy audio and when asked about if Washingtons being out of shape was a problem, the short crisp answer was "it's not a positive." Sherman never answered questions like that directly. He seemed to be all over the road in everything. I know you win with talent at the end of the day, but clearly the mindset and approach has to be night and day different from Sherman's and it would seem to be a positive. I know you aren't a fan, but from your view doesn't it seem to be simply a better run team topto bottom than before. I don't question Sherman's work ethic or organizational skills, but he just didn't seem to be able to translate the work into a confident cohesive plan.
A: Cliff Christl - I wrote about the draft and you're addressing an entirely different subject. I agree Sherman hired two lightweights as his first two defensive coordinators. And his offensive coordinator wasn't anything special either. Those decisions probably cost him more than any other. But you're dead wrong about Sherman not ever giving direct or critical answers. He did it more than most coaches, I thought. Like all coaches, he was evasive at times. McCarthy was like that this weekend. In fact, I was surprised at how guarded he was. I don't say that as a criticism. It's just the way coaches are. And to spend any time dissecting it is a waste.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tom of Wausau - Wow, what kind of an ego do you have to hold a chat up against one that the Packers coach is doing?
A: Cliff Christl - Maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment. If that's so, my ratings probably will compare to those shows opposite American Idol or NHL games.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: APJ of NYC - I know we don't have much to go on, but what is your general opinion of Aaron Rodgers? I still have no clue if he has the physical tools, but I'm impressed with his mental approach in that he seems to have the right work ethic and attitude. Do you have any indication that he is "the guy"? Also, I read that he was up to 228 lbs but he said he was in the best shape of his life. Is he really that big?
A: Cliff Christl - He has the tools to be a good quarterback, but that doesn't guarantee he'll be one. He didn't look 228 so it's probably good weight. Having a good attitude and work ethic is a good thing. But what will be more important is how he handles pressure, interacts with his teammates, etc. after he becomes the starter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Diggity of Santa Fe - Sounds like Greg Jennings made a positive first impression. I know he's under six feet tall, but does he have an NFL body? I'm a big fan of Donald Driver, but I'm always concerned with the number of shots he takes since he's not all that big. Robert Brooks had a smaller type of body too, and I think it really shortened his career. Does Jennings look like he can take the pounding that receivers take particularly in the West Coast offense?
A: Cliff Christl - I think he has an NFL body. He looked bigger than I expected. Let me make one thing clear. I don't think he has supertstar ability. But I could see him being a very good No. 2 or No. 3 receiver in the NFL. He looks like a natural. He's quick in and out of his cuts. He seems to have excellent hands. I'm guessing he has some run after the catch ability. But he doesn't have Terrell Owens or Randy Moss or Javon Walker size. I don't see his stature as a problem in terms of durability, but it might prevent him from being a Pro Bowl receiver.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Fats of Pleasanton, Ca - Hi Cliff, I know stats are only a part of the truth, but last year's defense seemed to be pretty good. It was not an elite defense, but it seemed to be pretty good at everything except maybe creating turnovers. With the improvements in the secondary, and d-line from free agency and from linebacker in the draft, how good could the defense be this year?
A: Cliff Christl - Good, not great. I thought Woodson looked good in camp, maybe the best athlete on a team where there aren't many, if any, players that make you go wow. Keep in mind that Manuel won a starting job in Seattle only because of an injury and Pickett was never anythng special in St. Louis. And Hawk has to prove himself. As a linebacker, maybe he wasn't going to jump out in a minicamp and he didn't. You had to look to find him. My experience watching practice for 30 some years is that great players just jump out at you. The Loftons. The Ted Hendricks. The Favres. Then again, maybe Hawk will do that in training camp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Cliff Jr. of Milwaukee - I'll admit that I'm wrong as much as the next guy in my assessment of players, but one that I had right from day one is Donnell Washington. The guy has always been and always will be a zero. I remember Ozzie Newsome being quoted before the draft saying something to the effect of "somebody call me when this guy actually makes a play." I don't care what kind of potential he has, if he's acting like he doesn't care, shouldn't they cut him NOW and make a statement that his approach to the game will not be tolerated?
A: Cliff Christl - He should have been cut in training camp a year ago. He did nothing last summer to win a job.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: kwed of dubuque - Cliff, I get excited when I read your obvservations about mini-camp. I like to hear both the good and bad. My question--In your mind, is Gado better than Green at this point? If we get the green of last year, do you believe he holds off Gado? Also, I was very disappointed to hear that hawkins didn't jump out in minicamp. Do you still like him?
A: Cliff Christl - I'll be honest. I didn't watch Hawkins much. Gado looked good. But I have no idea about Green. I think the Packers are counting on him and I think that's a mistake. I think if he comes back it's a bonus, but you don't plan around it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff of Arlington Heights - There was a lot of talk after the minicamp about the improvement of Aaron Rogers. I'm confident that he's not an Elway, Marino, or Favre, but does Rogers look like a legit NFL starting QB? Could he be a Hasselbeck or Brad Johnson, both non-HOF QB's but each having played in recent Super Bowls?
A: Cliff Christl - Sure. He probably has more ability than Hasselbeck, but that might be the kind of ceiling he has.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Norm of Falls Church, VA - It seems to me the better the player, the more frequent his special plays are, but also extrordinarily bad plays are more likely with a team's weak links. The great catch could also be the CB blowing the coverage; the big run could be a poor angle taken by the S; the sack the result of the OL loosing balance; ect. Assuming for a moment that this flip-side of your frequently sited star player effect, how well do you think the Packers have addressed their critical weaknesses (Woodson-Carrol).
A: Cliff Christl - Great point. Playmakers are the most valued of all in the NFL. But it'll kill you just the same to have starters who are less than adequate. Remember the '83 Packers? They had a Super Bowl offense and stiffs who just killed them running around on defense. Those are the two things that led to 4-12 last year. They lost two of their three playmakers, Walker and Green; and they were playing with roadkill at guard, wide receiver, running back at times, linebacker and in the secondary. I think they had worse starters than Carroll, but maybe nobody worse at a position as important as corner. Woodson should be an upgrade.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John of Wausau - Any later round draft picks or free agents that have stood out at the minicamp, other than the obvious top 3 or 4 guys?
A: Cliff Christl - The two that caught my eye were safety Tra Boger and running back Arliss Beach. I don't know if Beach is fast enough, but he's a natural runner. I thought the free agent wide receivers looked good, but I don't know if any one stood out. Ruvell Martin caught my eye a few times, but maybe that was because he was bigger than everybody else. But, as I recall, he made a great, diving catch on a deep ball.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: The Glass is half full of Denver - Cliff, OK, the Packers defense wasn't bad last year. They have improved 4 positions on defense and addressed their weakest part. If one of the lineman and one receiver the Packers drafted is good enough to be a starter, their offense has to be better, right? So are the Packers really that far away from 9-7?
A: Cliff Christl - At what four positions have they improved themselves on defense? Woodson over Carroll is one. Hawk over Robert Thomas is another. Mark Roman beat out Marquand Manuel in Cincinnati. So is that a given that Manuel is better? And Pickett played better last year in St. Louis, but was a disappointment before that. Just look at his signing bonus. Every team in the league is looking for big bodies in the middle on defense. If he was that good, he would have been swamped with offers. It always amuses me when I get comments criticizing the Packer drafts; but then when they sign somebody from another team that maybe didn't fulfill his promise, it's a great move. In 2001, the Rams drafted defensive tackle Damione Lewis, 12th; and Pickett, 29th. In 2003, they selected defensive tackle Jimmy Kennedy, 12th. If the Packers would made those picks, they'd have been vilified. You can't tell much about defensive tackles in a minicamp. But I think Pickett's like Colin Cole and Corey Williams: All good solid players to use as part of a rotation. But is he a big upgrade? Count me as a skeptic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Andy of Stevens Point - Why do you suppose the Packers have no interest in re-signing Grady Jackson? Does he want too much money? Does he have a poor attitude? I thought he was a pretty good player last year.
A: Cliff Christl - Because it's time to move on and that's what I'm going to do after this question. He's overweight, which makes him an injury risk. He was unhappy with his contract, so he's going to be just as unhappy signing for minimum, which isn't that big of deal except that it probably wouldn't give him any incentive to get in better shape. But the Packers probably are just tired of dealing with him and his money situation. Plus, it's a young man's game. Get rid of Jackson and you give opportunity to the Coles, the Picketts, the Williamses. What did Ron Wolf say? Cemeteries are filled with people who thought they were irreplaceable. In essence, very few people are. Vince Lombardi might have been. Brett Favre might be. Grady Jackson hardly falls into that category. Nor does yours truly.