motife
11-07-2007, 05:15 PM
WEDNESDAY, Nov. 7, chat transcript
Cliff Christl
Retired Packer Insider columnist
With the Green Bay Packers at 7-1 midway through the regular season, former Packer Insider columnist Cliff Christl returned for a guest chat appearance.
Q: mo of sparks, nevada - greetings cliff! i sure hope you are enjoying your retirement! i have heard and read several experts comment that the packers short passing game is equivalent to a solid running game. your thoughts? thank you and best wishes.
A: Cliff Christl - As was per custom during mid-week chats, I'll start with the first question posted and work my way down the list. First, Mo, thanks for the greeting. I expected retirement to be utopia and it's even better than I expected. Now on to football. The Packers, obviously, are using their short passing game to move the chains and win games; and they're able to do that because they have a talented, veteran quarterback who isn't making mistakes. But I don't think it's the equivalent of a running game. A good running game establishes tempo, creates mindsets in players, etc., that win games at playoff time. I realize it's a passing league. And if you look back at the recent Super Bowl winners, except for those who won with great defense -- great, not good, and there's a distinction there -- they were pass-first teams except for maybe Pittsburgh in '05. But the Colts, the Patriots, the Rams -- other winners since 2000 -- they relied more on the pass than run. But they also could run the ball. Even when pass-happy Mike Martz was calling the plays for Dick Vermeil in XXXIV, the Rams had the most explosive and valuable running back in the league in Marshall Faulk. So my answer would be, there is no substitute for being able to run the ball.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff Helminiak of Kenai, AK - A friend of mine keeps insisting the current Patriots have the best receiving corps ever in the NFL. I know it's nine games into the season, but what do you think? Which receiving corps - year and team - do you think was the best of all time?
A: Cliff Christl - Best of all time? That's saying a mouthful. I think Randy Moss is the most talented receiver in the history of the game. But I don't think Welker, Stallworth or Ben Watson are anything more than role players. Very good role players, but Moss makes them better than they are. Just compare what they've done in the past with what they're doing now. And Moss, for the reasons you know, probably isn't considered by many the greatest receiver of all time. I'd pick Jerry Rice and I think most people would. Rice played with Dwight Clark, who is on the Hall of Fame ballot this year, and the tight end for a couple years was Russ Francis, who also is on the Hall of Fame ballot. Francis was a talent in the same mold as Tony Gonzales. Are the current Patriots' receivers better than Minnesota's when Moss first got there and was playing with Cris Carter and Jake Reed? The Pittsburgh Steelers had two Hall of Famers playing together for about 10 years -- Stallworth and Swann -- plus a decent tight end in Ben Cunningham. As I recall, he was a lot like Watson. The Chargers had Charlie Joiner, John Jefferson and Kellen Winslow back in the '70s and '80s; and Joiner and Winslow are Hall of Famers. If you want to go way back, before there was even such a thing as the tight end position, the old Los Angeles Rams had two Hall of Famers, Tom Fears and Elroy Hirsch, and a terrific third receiver in Bob Boyd. And Cleveland, going back to the old AAFC, had Hall of Famer Dante Lavelli, Mac Speedie (who some think was better than Lavelli) and Dub Jones, who was kind of a hybrid flanker, halfback. The Colts had a pretty good receiving corps the last few years with Harrison, Wayne and Dallas Clark. So best ever? I don't think so. Nobody in that Patriots' group is likely going into the Hall of Fame other than maybe Moss. Now, if your friend wants to argue that Brady and Moss is the best qb-receiver tandem ever, I might agree. But let's wait until the season is over, although it appears their statistics together might obliterate some of the old standards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff C. of Washington, DC - GREAT TO SEE YOU AGAIN CLIFF!! I have been thinking of the "playmaker" theory of building a winning program you used to discuss in your columns and chats. Do you see Greg Jennings (and Maybe James Jones, down the road) developing as a true playmaker? And what is your overall opinion of how the Packers have developed so far this year?
A: Cliff Christl - Jennings and Jones make plays. So, in a sense, they're playmakers. I also think Jennings has a chance to be a Pro Bowl player. With Jones, it's too early to tell, at least for me it is. I didn't watch him during training camp and don't have that good a feel for him. Again, when I refer to playmakers I'm talking about the elite of the elite. Randy Moss, when he's playing with a purpose, is a difference-maker in every game. Even when other teams shut him down, they leave themselves vulnerable in other areas that the Patriots can then exploit. The same for Terrell Owens. Does Jennings have that kind of upside? I don't think so. Could the Packers win a Super Bowl with Jennings and Jones down the road? Sure, if the two keep improving and stay healthy. But those guys aren't going to carry a team. They wouldn't be your blue players, the one, two or three special players that you need. But they could be among the handful of red players who also matter, just to a lesser degree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave of cedarburg - Hey Buddy, glad to see you have returned for a chat! I would like to know what you think of AJ Hawk. Is he playing up to his draft position, money, etc? To me, he seems like a good player but not great and seems to be a bust or at least a disappointment as a #5 overall draft selection. Thanks
A: Cliff Christl - I wouldn't call him a bust, but he's not making plays that decide games. That was a big interception Sunday, but he was in a rare situation where he was quicker and had better reactions to the ball than a 34-year old running back who hadn't played since Eisenhower was president. Again, with the fifth pick in the draft, you'd like to get a blue player who goes to a bunch of Pro Bowls, dominates games, etc. Hawk hasn't done that and I don't know if he ever will because he was supposed to be about as ready-made a prospect as any that has come out in the last 10 years or so. How much upside is there? But it is just his second year and I think the Packers design their defense knowing that he can run with receivers and has more talent than you're average linebacker. I think they put a lot on his table and he plays every down. Those are pluses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Paul of Eau Claire - Cliff, it's great to have you back. Not to say that the other journalists haven't stepped up in your absence but sometimes you really dont know how good something is until it's gone. You talked about playmakers until you were blue in the face the last few years of your tenure. What are your thoughts on the Packers receivers. Have they gotten better or is Favre just playing better this year than in years past? Secondly, who is playing in the Superbowl this year?
A: Cliff Christl - Thanks, but as Ron Wolf said, cemeteries are filled with people who thought they were irreplaceable. I expected the beat to go on and I'm glad you're satisfied with the coverage you're getting. I think I've answered about the receivers. I also think Favre is playing better and some of that has to do with his receivers. What's my prediction for the Super Bowl? New England vs. Dallas with the Patriots winning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dr. Jim of Fowlerville, MI - Cliff..good to see you back for a chat. Is Aaron Rouse a big drop off from Collins? It seemed Like Collins has the ball in his hands each game only to drop a sure INT for a TD...maybe Aaron can make these plays?
A: Cliff Christl - Again, I don't know much about Rouse. I went to one practice this summer -- the one at old City Stadium -- and sat in the stands and watched Rouse a little. I remember he got caught flat-footed once where he was too upright to get a good backpedal and turn his hips. I wondered about that, but that was one practice. Collins was an average player. If Rouse is good enough to be average rather than a liability, there won't be much dropoff, if any.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jay of Connecticut - Great to have you back. Last year you noted that Favre's accuracy may be slipping, which you took as an indication of his advancing age. What are your thoughts now based on the first 8 games this year?
A: Cliff Christl - He's throwing the ball more accurately. In my combative, pre-retirement days, I might have argued that maybe he worked harder this off-season and reversed the aging process. But I won't. I'll just admit I was wrong. Apparently, his diminishing accuracy last year was due to something other than the age factor. Maybe it was his receivers. That he didn't have confidence in some of them. However, what I find curious, is that Favre's accuracy on the deep ball was never one of his strengths. Ron Wolf always told me that Favre's accuracy short was exceptional, but less so on deep balls. The last few weeks I think he's throwing the deep ball better than ever. And even the Redskin game, I thought was an anomaly. Just to sidetrack here, my tickets are 6 and like 13 rows up, so I get to observe some things I never did in the press box. I remember telling you last year when I sat outside for an exhibition game how Vince Young's athletic ability just jumped out at me. Well, ditto for Sean Taylor. In all my years of covering practice, etc., I've never seen a safety cover ground like that. In that regard, it was like he was playing in a higher league. Watching LaDainian Tomlinson up close this year, there was a little bit of a "Wow!" factor when he had some room to run. But Taylor is the one guy whose athletic ability just leaped out at me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bill of Chicago - I'm looking to buy a jersey (past or present) that best represents the Green Bay Packers. Whose jersey should I buy?
A: Cliff Christl - The obvious answer would be Favre. But Bill, what kind of guy are you? Typical Chicago? Like a cocktail,a cigar, a beautiful woman on your arm? Then how about Johnny Blood? You kind of a gruff, feisty guy? How about Buckets Goldenberg? You serious, tight with a buck, hardly ever imbibe? You could try Don Hutson. Or Bart Starr, although I have no reason to believe he was as tight as Hutson. Would you like a lot of consonants on your back? Then Nitschke might be a good choice. If you're the religious type, how about Reggie White? My favorite Packer as a kid was Herb Adderley and he's a Hall of Famer. If you're a big, happy-go-lucky guy with more strength than you realize -- can you pop the cap off a beer bottle with your bare thumb? -- think about Ed Neal. That would be kind of a thumb-in-the-eye to all your Bear fan friends even though they wouldn't know it. Ed Neal was a blacksmith from Texas who use to break about two or three of Bulldog Turner's helmets -- when those old plastic helmets first came out in the '40s or '50s -- each game. I think Bulldog told me that Ed Neal broke his nose like seven times.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Brad of Stevens Point - The DB's play tough physical football, but have received a lot of penalties. Do you think they may start to get a bad reputation in the eyes of the officials and not receiving the benefit of the doubt on close. That is will they start to treated like Ahmad Carrol?
A: Cliff Christl - I think maybe just the opposite. Let's face it, it's not just the scheme that calls for Harris and Woodson to play the way they do. Anybody out there play pick-up basketball into your late 30s or 40s? What do you do? You pound the you-know-what out of younger players to offset their quickness and to win games. That's what Woodson and Harris are doing. And they're savvy veterans so they'll adjust without changing their style. Carroll was too immature to figure that out. And as time goes on, if Harris and Woodson get called for some cheap penalties -- and that seems to be happening already -- Mike McCarthy will alert the league and the league will caution the officials, and, in turn, the officials might be a little less reluctant to throw their flags. By playoff time, the officials usually let the players decide the games. Plus, I don't know that Harris, especially, could survive by completely changing his game. The speed isn't there. That's why the Packers probably are going to have think about replacing those two corners maybe sooner than you think. But, right now, penalties or not, they're a big reason why the Packers are 7-1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Rich of LA - Thanks for coming back for a guest chat Cliff. Is it because you wanted to say "I told You so" to all of us Matt Millen haters? My Question is about Koren Robinson. Last year you were vehemently opposed to the Packers signing him. Most people thought it wasn't a high risk signing. A two year contract, small signing bonus and no pay while suspended. Well, he hasn't gone on a drunken rampage driving through Green Bay killing innocent civilians as you suggested. In fact, it looks like he may be on the road to recovery and has been given another chance by the commissioner. He may also be able to contribute something as a wide receiver this year. Do you still think the Packers made a terrrible mistake by signing him last season?
A: Cliff Christl - Yes. I still think it was a stupid risk to sign him last year. The Packers were lucky that the commissioner suspended him and saved them from a potentially disastrous development. Last year, before I wrote that column, my sources told me that giving Robinson another chance was the worst thing for him. That that was his biggest problem: Everybody kept making excuses for him, giving him second chances and there was no reason for him to change. What he needed, they said, was tough love not the coddling the Packers were prepared to provide him. Thanks to Roger Goodell, by suspending Robinson for a year and banning him from the Packers' facilities, Robinson seems to have learned a lesson. Now, that he has undergone extensive treatment -- not a month removed from driving drunk at 100 mph -- I have no problem with the Packers giving him another chance. But they should have waited until now to sign him. There was no reason not to wait. Koren Robinson isn't Randy Moss. He had two decent years in Seattle. He never caught more than 5 TD passes in a season. As you saw Sunday, he's really rusty. He couldn't keep his feet under him. But, clearly, there's some talent there and I'd say right now, it's worth it for the Packers to see if they might resurrect his career and get a good second or third receiver out of the deal. But some fans last year acted as though he was going to be the savior. Get real.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Kurt of San Francisco - Hi Cliff, Welcome back. I am proud as ever that the Packers are off to a 7-1 start. However, I'm concerned that they've gotten most of their TD's on long passes. This is fun to watch. But I haven't seen many sustained drives deep into the red zone that result in TD's. I believe we are around 18th in red zone efficiency. Is that something to be concerned about for our playoff hopes?
A: Cliff Christl - The NFL is all about making plays. How many big plays did the Colts make last year on their way to winning the Super Bowl? But the Colts also had Joseph Addai and the Packers have nobody like him. Also, is Favre as good as Peyton Manning; their receivers as good as Harrison, Wayne and Clark were last year? I think that's what you should be asking yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Trevor of Kenora - Hi Cliff-it's great to have you back, even just for the occasional chat. My question for you involves Randy Moss. I wasn't disappointed when the Packers didn't land him, but now I'm starting to wonder. Looking way ahead and being optimistic, let's say the Packers and the Patriots meet in the Super Bowl. If Moss was a Packer (and maybe the Pats don't get that far without Moss, of course), what would Green Bay's chances be of winning the game? Or is New England that much stronger than everyone else, even without Moss? Do you think TT regrets passing on him? Just thinking out loud. Thanks-hope you're enjoying your retirement!
A: Cliff Christl - Put Moss on the Packers and I think they might be able to give the Patriots a game. I'd probably still give the edge to the Patriots, but not by much. As things stand now, if Brady and Moss stay healthy, I can't see anyone else winning the Super Bowl and I can't see how the Packers could beat the Patriots if that ended up being the matchup. Does Ted Thompson regret not signing Moss? I don't want to criticize anyone that I don't have to face any longer, but I think I wrote before I retired that I thought the Packers should go after Moss. Again, the more I watch other teams, I'm convinced more than ever that the scouts who believe that a season usually hinges on two, three, maybe four, five players at the most are right more often than not. Take this year. Let's face it, if the Patriots lost Brady and had to play Matt Cassel, there's no way they'd win the Super Bowl. Ditto for the Colts if they lost Peyton Manning. But with Brady and Manning, those two teams seem to be heads above the others, or at least the Patriots do. Now, I'd say Favre is playing like one of the top five or seven players in the league right now. And Moss would be in that category, too. He might be the third best player. Give the Packers two players of that caliber -- along with all the other good, solid players that they have -- and I think they'd have a legitimate shot at the Super Bowl. Ted Thompson might never get that chance again. What are the chances of the Packers winning a Super Bowl in the first several years after Favre retires? So, yeah, I think he knows that Moss might have been the added dimension that could have put the Packers over the top. Let's face it, 7-1, making the playoffs, all that stuff stirs excitement and makes the Packers feel good about themselves. But as Vince Lombardi said, "There are only two places, first and last." The bottom line is that all that matters in the end is winning the Super Bowl.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jack of Deadwood, SD - Hello Cliff, I've missed you this year. Have you picked a subject to write about for your next book? Who do you think is the most improved player on the Packers this year?
A: Cliff Christl - Dale Hofmann and I combined on a book this summer: "The 25 Greatest Moments in Lambeau Field History." It's just hitting the bookshelves. And I've got a few other ideas that I'm working on at my own pace. Most improved player? Maybe Greg Jennings. Johnny Jolly. But I think Jennings has been the more valuable of the two. He's making plays that win games.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Nasty of LaX - Cliff For years you have been talking about how teams build their team in the draft....how come the Patriots, probably the best team the NFL has seen in the last 10 years have been carried by free agency. Moss, Wes Welker, Stallworth, Colvin, Harrison, Vrabel, and Adalius Thomas were not aquired via draft...do you still strongly believe in this theory????
A: Cliff Christl - I stick by my guns. Tom Brady was a draft pick and he's the No. 1 reason the Patriots are winning. Take him out of the equation and Bill Belichick's winning percentage still might be what it was before he switched from Bledsoe to Brady. Also, the strength of that Patriots' defense is the line. All draft picks. Wilfork and Warren, and now with Seymour coming back, they were all No. 1 picks. In fact, in the back seven, where most of those free agents are is where the Patriots are vulnerable. If somebody beats them this year, that's my guess where the downfall will be. Guys like Harrison, Colvin, Seau and Bruschi, a draft pick, have some years on them. They've also missed time with injuries over the last few years and the Patriots haven't missed any of them. They're role players. And Belichick's philosophy is that he'd rather go with veterans on defense who won't make mistakes and that he can shuttle in and out of the lineup, playing to their strengths and hiding their weaknesses, rather than young, untested guys. That didn't work the last two years because the Patriots didn't have any playmakers on offense to go with Brady. But now with Moss they do. So when you're scoring 40 points a game, those veteran defensive players can be a plus, not a liability. That's why Belichick signed Adalius Thomas. He knew the Colts and the Chargers, also to a degree, exposed some of those weaknesses in his back seven last year. And Moss is a rare talent. He falls in that same category as when the Packers signed Reggie White and the Cowboys and 49ers signed Deion Sanders. Having a player like that on the open market happens maybe once every three, four, five years. Also keep in mind that another strength of the Patriots is their offensive line and their best linemen are draft picks. So Belichick is using free agency much like Ron Wolf. Once he built the foundation mostly through the draft -- let's face it, Favre was in essence a draft pick; a player Wolf fell in love with through his college scouting -- and then completing the puzzle with some free agents. I don't quarrel at all with that blueprint. Yes, free agents have benefited the Patriots. They've dramatically improved what had been a glaring weakness: Wide receiver. But the core of that team was built through the draft.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Alex Scribner of Vancouver, WA - Cliff, I'm interested in your take on what has been the biggest reason for the failure of the Packer running game thus far in 2007. Has it been the lack of a top notch RB or more the poor play of the O-Line? Would a Marshawn Lynch - if he had been available to the Packers - even been able to do much with such O-line play? And finally, if the running game does not become more of a consistent threat, can the Packers really go deep into the playoffs? Thanks!
A: Cliff Christl - Almost every scout that I've ever talked to said great runners make a running game, more than the other way around. And what do the Packers have? Pretty pedestrian backs. Yes, I realize Larry Johnson is really handicapped by his line. Any back needs good blocking. But I'll guarantee you this: If you put Adrian Peterson on the Packers, he might not have 1,000-plus yards already and a 6.6 average, but I'll bet he'd be close to 1,000 and averaging better than 5 a carry. What makes him special? All it takes is a crease and he can go the distance. His numbers come from his long runs, and what he does in the open field, mostly on his own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Sam of Chicago - Hi Cliff, Welcome back and thanks for your time! Believe me, while the others are doing a very admirable job, you are missed. Two questions. First is one I posed to Mr. McGinn but he declined to answer. Alcorn State, San Jose State, and Western Michigan are our top three receivers' (in no particular order) alma mater. Is this an indication of the dilution of talent in the NFL, a coincidence, a reflection of the scouts' talent, some mixture, or none of the above? Second, I asked numerous times over the last 8-9 years, and even was featured on Packers Round Table once, if there was a fundamental difference between the picks Brett threw when Holmgren ran the show and the picks he threw under Sherman/Rhodes. Maybe a little I told you so, but don't you think that journalists should now step up and explain why they didn't question that then but now are crediting MMC with Brett's renaissance for challenging him on his sometimes stupid decisions? You can go back and check the chats, I have never said Brett was anything less than one of the greatest, but I remember the distinction between Lambeau Field giving him a standing ovation for throwing the ball away and coaches making the disclaimer that Brett will be Brett after stupid picks. I think that journalists should acknowledge their mistake while they praise McCarthy for his fortitude. To begin this healing process, I will acknowledge that I thought that Sherman was given the short end of the stick (a contradiction to my wanting him to challenge Favre) and thoght of him as a top ten coach while wondering where McCarthy came from. Thanks again and hope to hear from you again soon Cliff. My 8 month old was a Hell's Angel for Halloween. Keep Riding!
A: Cliff Christl - I don't know the answer to your question about the wide receivers. Maybe it's just a coincidence. Maybe it's all the factors you suggested. Let's face it, there are good players at that level of college ball, although the Packers seemed to be almost alone in their admiration for Jones. Sounds like a scouting find to me. As for Favre's interceptions, I don't think there's one answer. And I don't buy that McCarthy is that much more demanding than Sherman. Maybe that's part of it. I think the biggest factor is that Favre realizes that he doesn't have to win games by himself. He has a better defense, a better group of receivers. If you're the quarterback and you line up with Robert Ferguson split wide and Antonio Chatman in the slot, and Bubba Franks at tight end, how confident would you be that somebody is going to make a play to win a game other than you by maybe doing something wild and crazy? When I was working, I couldn't believe how some people in the business thought Ferguson and Chatman had some ability. Ferguson should have been shipped out a year or two earlier; and Chatman never should have been in the league. He was the perfect example of what Tom Landry used to talk about: You make exceptions for runts or guys who can't run fast, and you lose -- forever. You watch Favre this year and he's not always throwing into tight quarters. Jennings, especially, has a knack for creating space; I think even much moreso than Driver. And I had an interesting conversation this summer with an old NFL tight end who had followed Favre's career. And he talked about how from his experience when quarterbacks throw a lot of interceptions to linebackers and safeties, it's often because of problems at tight end. He said it's the tight end who has to keep those players honest by stretching the field, finding the seams behind linebackers, etc. Without that, he said safeties and linebackers are always jumping the other receiver's routes. That was one ex-players' theory. But maybe that's why this new regime finally put Franks on the bench. And maybe just the presence of Donald Lee is making a difference, making defenses play more honest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike Gisel of Davenport, IA - Cliff, The regression of our young linemen this year is very discouraging. Is it still too early to judge whether Colledge, Spitz, & Moll have what it takes to be solid players? Also you have to give TT credit, he has put together quite a team, and he did it the right way.
A: Cliff Christl - The play of the line hasn't been what was expected, but sometimes it takes time at that position. Mike Wahle, Marco Rivera weren't overnight sensations. So time will tell. As for Ted Thompson, I agree. I couldn't believe the criticism he was getting last off-season. People criticized him for drafting Justin Harrell. Those people had to be clueless. I don't know if Harrell will be a player. There's risk with every draft pick. But criticizing someone for taking a big defensive linemen, especially on a team that's facing the prospect of Brett Favre retiring sometime soon? That's one of the most critical positions in football. You could never have enough good ones. And if you're ever going to win a Super Bowl with defense, you're going to have to have a great defensive line. Plus, don't those people realize that just drafting Harrell probably put a bur up some of those other linemen's butts and got them worried about their own jobs and created competition. And criticizing Thompson for letting Ahman Green go? The guy had been in deline for three years. He was an injury waiting to happen. He rushed for 1,059 yards last year. He was 19th in the league in rushing. He was a pedestrian back. What kind of loss was that? One of the things I heard GMs, scouts, etc., repeat time after time was that you have to m move on. Well, it was time for the Packers to move on at running back, whether they had someone to replace Green or not. The only mistake I thought Thompson made was not getting the deal done for Randy Moss.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mark of Beaver Dam - Hello again Cliff, you have been sorely missed. I was just thinking to myself last week, I wonder who on this current Packers team would qualify as playmakers. So, since you're back at least for a day, please let me ask you, who do you see as the Packers key playmakers at this point? Just the usual suspects or any surprises? Personally I've been most impressed by Johnny Jolly and Aaron Kampman to this point.
A: Cliff Christl - As I wrote last season, the Packers have a lot of good players. In terms of good players, depth, etc., I don't think they take a backseat to anybody. What team is deeper on the defensive line? Their guards and running backs are nothing special, but they don't have a lot of weaknesses. You can thank Ted Thompson's philosophy of hording draft picks and recognizing that it's a young man's league for all of that. He has turned the Packers into a young, hungry team. As George Young, the old NY Giant GM who was around forever and won Super Bowls, used to say: Just like the Marines, that's what you want. And I think the other big difference this year is that Brett Favre is playing like a blue player again. Kampman might be close. And they've got some red players, maybe several, depending on how liberal your grading system. But, again, to win the Super Bowl, you need at least one blue player, probably two or three. Last year, as I wrote then, there were three teams that had a shot at winning it all: The Colts because of Manning, the Patriots because of Brady and the Chargers because of Tomlinson. The Patriots and maybe the Colts seem to be in a league of their own this year. But other than maybe the Cowboys, the Packers might have the next best playmaker in Favre and the best team that he's had around him since 2003.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ann of Amherst, NH - Cliffie!!! I miss your eagle eye and cool analysis for football detail. It's great to have you doing a visiting chat (or whatever this is called). For the past 3 years, you have patiently explained to anyone who questioned you how Favre would still be considered at least a mid-tier QB, that he was good for at least 2 or 3 wins a year, in spite of the interceptions. I hope you feel vindicated; Favre is now generally considered the 3rd best QB playing right now, behind the B&M guys. What, exactly, do you see him doing differently? Is this the McCarthy effect? Or his receivers? (BTW: I did a statistical analysis of Favre's INTs that made it onto ColdHardFootballFacts.com, showing that, in his overall body of work, Favre's INTs are no worse than Elway's or Marino's.) Thanks for making a cyber-stop at PackerPlus.
A: Cliff Christl - I agree. Brady and Manning are the top two QBs in the game. Carson Palmer might be next, but due to injuries and all kinds of other stuff, the Bengals are a train wreck and it seems to have affected him. So Favre might be the third best quarterback. I think Tony Romo, Roethlisberger, Eli Manning and Vince Young in his own way are all young, ascending qbs. But I don't see a great defense in the NFC. That means to win, a team is going to need a good quarterback and I only see three other possibilities beside the Packers: Dallas, the Giants and maybe the Saints. I think McNabb and the Eagles have grown old. And I'm not even sold on Brees being able to win three playoff games without a lot of help. I like the Redskins' safeties, but I'm not sold on Campbell yet. So I don't know if that team could be a factor or not. So was I right about Favre? Thanks for the credit, but I thought he was slipping in his ability to make plays, that he was losing his accuracy and that he no longer could lead a team to the Super Bowl. I obviously was too harsh in that assessment. At the same time, I disagreed with those who didn't rank him among the top 100 players in the league or even top 50; or who thought Donald Driver was more important to the Packers or the better player. Come on. I saw ratings that had Jon Kitna and Jeff Garcia ahead of Favre. Those are your consummate journeymen. But that's all you need in the NFC this year to be in the race. Just look at some of the starters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike of Ankeny, IA - Cliff, First, its a real treat to have you back so thank you. I've been very impressed with McCarthy since he arrived in GB. His macho attitude seems to carry over to his players and this in turn has made them seem (on TV at least) like a more physical team which has been translating ultimately into more victories. Your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - You can't help but be impressed. Remember the day he was hired and all the people on our chat screaming for Ted Thompson's head for hiring a guy with no better credentials? That's why it's best for all of us: Sportswriters, fans, etc., to wait until you've accumulated some knowledge about a person or subject before offering an opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John Casper of Milwaukee - Hi Cliff, hope everything is well with you. If you care to comment, do you have any opinions on Bellechick and spygate?
A: Cliff Christl - No strong opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeremy of the Prairie - Cliff, I've missed reading your biting commentary. After some time away from the journalism business do you still feel that an objectionable journalist can't also be a fan? It seems those journalists that proclaim their non-fanhood have the most negative views about the Packers while hardly ever giving credit to the team. How is being negative being objectionable? (I remember your Favre, time between HOF QBs article so I definitely can't say that about you.) It just seems there is a lot of negative focus directed at a 7-1 team.
A: Cliff Christl - No. I still don't think you can be a fan and do justice to your job as a journalist. I read the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the Green Bay Press-Gazette daily and I don't see the negative coverage you're talking about. The reporters dig and analyze and critique sometimes negatively developments with the team, but that's their job as impartial observers. If the national media has been critical, so what? There are some astute observers among them. But a lot of them have no clue. They might be offering opinions without ever having seen the Packers play a complete game. My suggestion would be: Be a little more discerning about the people you read and listen to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Arsenio of Knock Some Heads, CA - Cliff. Since we didn't get to hear your pre-season thoughts, what was your prediction for the team, and who have been the biggest surprises? And would you have bet a buck versus a grand that the Pack would be 7-1 at this point?
A: Cliff Christl - I didn't watch training camp, so I wasn't in position to gauge that. I liked what Thompson did during the off-season and knew they had a young team, so I suspected they'd be better. I didn't think they'd be 7-1. But I'm a big fan of addition by subtraction. Last year, they were playing Green, Henderson, Franks, Ferguson until he got hurt. Those guys had been descending players for at least two, three years. If you have that many descending players, you're going to be going the wrong way in the standings. So I liked the fact Thompson was getting rid of the deadwood and opening positions for young players to compete for. I knew they had depth and some talent in the defensive line, maybe the most important area in football other than quarterback. And I knew they had some capable veterans at the other key positions: Cornerback, left tackle. What I didn't know was that Urlacher was going to suffer from an arthritic back and that Tommie Harris wouldn't be fully recovered from his injury, so that the Bears were going to go completely in the tank. I think we all knew that their quarterback would be a liability again. But they got to the Super Bowl last year largely because of four players -- Briggs and Hester being the others -- and now two of those have really slipped. That's part of what's behind the Packers' success here. There aren't many good teams in the NFC; and that was obvious even before camp started. But it became more obvious after the qbs started going down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Darrin of Longmont - Cliff, Hope you're enjoying your retirement --- we miss you dearly. Cliff, will you please take this opportunity to gloat a bit and tell the Matt Millen bashers of the world, "I told you so."
A: Cliff Christl - I'm not overly impressed with what Millen has done. I think the Lions could easily falter the second half of this season or next year. Again, they don't have enough special players. But I'll stand by my original position: This is football, not brain surgery. Millen was no less qualified to get a crack at being a GM than most other people. Some guys in the league and their sycophants resented it. I didn't. Plus, I never believed in criticizing people long-distance. For the most part, if I was going to rip somebody, then it would be somebody with the Packers, the team I covered and the people I faced.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Yuri Zanow of New York City - So Cliff, what have you been up to lately? P.S. Thanks for the tips about visiting Green Bay. The Union Hotel and Zesty's frozen custard were terrific and I had a great time visiting City Stadium the night before the Packers practiced there this summer. I also enjoyed staying at the James Street Inn, especially the riverwalk.
A: Cliff Christl - All good choices on your part.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Leon De Commie of Huevelmeyer, Wisconsin - Cliff, what is the view around the league of the strength of the packer organization as a whole. Is the team viewed with respect by the other owners, or is the team a bunch of rubes with our local boy board?
A: Cliff Christl - Good question. I've heard some things that make me wonder what's going to happen when Bob Harlan steps down. It used to be that the board of directors was more an honorary position, but that now some of the newer additions want to have more of a say, etc. You can't have 45 people running an NFL franchise. You can't have seven. Most of these board members and executive committee members have been highly successful, but I've known enough of them over the years to know that most don't know diddly about how personnel people in the NFL think and what it takes to win. As a result, in the past, most of them were smart enough to realize that and didn't try to interfere with the president and his inner circle. The most recent people added to the executive committee from what I understand were John Jones' choices. So there was at least one change there that I'm not sure was for the good. I heard all summer that John Fabry had some health problems and now I've heard that he took a leave from the executive committee. So the organization seems to be in a state of flux. I think it would be wise to forget about the search committee, forget about letting the board get involved, and let Bob Harlan, and maybe retired member John Underwood, and one or two of others of the old trusted guard on the executive committee and just let them pick the next president rather risking this thing turning into a circus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mad Dog of East Texas - Mr. Cliff Christl, I just got home at 1:10am and saw that you are back. I figured you were to busy on your autobiography "Often Mistaken, Never In Doubt" to be back but since you are taking the time, I thought I would to. Greg Bedard has taken the position that getting Moss for a 4th round pick was not neccessary and now that we are 7-1 he feels this more or less proves his point. He will not however defend that mindset with much gusto other than to just say it time and time again. At least when you were wrong you showed to defend the indefensible all the time. But in keeping with your theory that a few "differencemakers" are the ones who determines a teams success, how in the world does throwing a 4th round pick in order to get Moss constitute a mistake. I know we are 7-1, I think Thompson know's his stuff, and MCarthy can coach very well, and the team is putting together a good nucleus, but how does adding a true difference maker constitute a mistake. I think the addition of Moss would have made a pretty good situation even better and our offense even tht much more of a threat. Belichick had a great team and went out trying to make a great team better and that seems to be the thing that sets him among the elite coaches of all time. In your humble and well reasoned opinion, are you in the Bedard camp where "pretty good" equals "outstanding" and Moss was not worth a 4th round pick, or is this one decision if we could do it all over again knowing everything we do no we absolutely go get Moss. If you see Mr. Bedard, you might mention to him that Moss is having one of those....um you know....world record years. Oh yeah. good news on McMillen. After 40 or so top 5 picks, he might finally be proving he is great. How did you spot the greatness so early? All in all I hope your beer is cold.
A: Cliff Christl - Mad Dog, I miss you too. Love and kisses. And, yes, I think Randy Moss would have made this a much better team. How could he not? He's the best receiver in the game and one of the top three, four, five players. Yes, he has been a distraction, at times, in the past, but I don't see him -- or Terrell Owens for that matter -- causing any problems this year on teams that are winning. If I was Randy Moss and my quarterback was Andrew Walter I wouldn't be happy, either, or see much sense in running routes all out. It has been a pleasure. So long.
Cliff Christl
Retired Packer Insider columnist
With the Green Bay Packers at 7-1 midway through the regular season, former Packer Insider columnist Cliff Christl returned for a guest chat appearance.
Q: mo of sparks, nevada - greetings cliff! i sure hope you are enjoying your retirement! i have heard and read several experts comment that the packers short passing game is equivalent to a solid running game. your thoughts? thank you and best wishes.
A: Cliff Christl - As was per custom during mid-week chats, I'll start with the first question posted and work my way down the list. First, Mo, thanks for the greeting. I expected retirement to be utopia and it's even better than I expected. Now on to football. The Packers, obviously, are using their short passing game to move the chains and win games; and they're able to do that because they have a talented, veteran quarterback who isn't making mistakes. But I don't think it's the equivalent of a running game. A good running game establishes tempo, creates mindsets in players, etc., that win games at playoff time. I realize it's a passing league. And if you look back at the recent Super Bowl winners, except for those who won with great defense -- great, not good, and there's a distinction there -- they were pass-first teams except for maybe Pittsburgh in '05. But the Colts, the Patriots, the Rams -- other winners since 2000 -- they relied more on the pass than run. But they also could run the ball. Even when pass-happy Mike Martz was calling the plays for Dick Vermeil in XXXIV, the Rams had the most explosive and valuable running back in the league in Marshall Faulk. So my answer would be, there is no substitute for being able to run the ball.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff Helminiak of Kenai, AK - A friend of mine keeps insisting the current Patriots have the best receiving corps ever in the NFL. I know it's nine games into the season, but what do you think? Which receiving corps - year and team - do you think was the best of all time?
A: Cliff Christl - Best of all time? That's saying a mouthful. I think Randy Moss is the most talented receiver in the history of the game. But I don't think Welker, Stallworth or Ben Watson are anything more than role players. Very good role players, but Moss makes them better than they are. Just compare what they've done in the past with what they're doing now. And Moss, for the reasons you know, probably isn't considered by many the greatest receiver of all time. I'd pick Jerry Rice and I think most people would. Rice played with Dwight Clark, who is on the Hall of Fame ballot this year, and the tight end for a couple years was Russ Francis, who also is on the Hall of Fame ballot. Francis was a talent in the same mold as Tony Gonzales. Are the current Patriots' receivers better than Minnesota's when Moss first got there and was playing with Cris Carter and Jake Reed? The Pittsburgh Steelers had two Hall of Famers playing together for about 10 years -- Stallworth and Swann -- plus a decent tight end in Ben Cunningham. As I recall, he was a lot like Watson. The Chargers had Charlie Joiner, John Jefferson and Kellen Winslow back in the '70s and '80s; and Joiner and Winslow are Hall of Famers. If you want to go way back, before there was even such a thing as the tight end position, the old Los Angeles Rams had two Hall of Famers, Tom Fears and Elroy Hirsch, and a terrific third receiver in Bob Boyd. And Cleveland, going back to the old AAFC, had Hall of Famer Dante Lavelli, Mac Speedie (who some think was better than Lavelli) and Dub Jones, who was kind of a hybrid flanker, halfback. The Colts had a pretty good receiving corps the last few years with Harrison, Wayne and Dallas Clark. So best ever? I don't think so. Nobody in that Patriots' group is likely going into the Hall of Fame other than maybe Moss. Now, if your friend wants to argue that Brady and Moss is the best qb-receiver tandem ever, I might agree. But let's wait until the season is over, although it appears their statistics together might obliterate some of the old standards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff C. of Washington, DC - GREAT TO SEE YOU AGAIN CLIFF!! I have been thinking of the "playmaker" theory of building a winning program you used to discuss in your columns and chats. Do you see Greg Jennings (and Maybe James Jones, down the road) developing as a true playmaker? And what is your overall opinion of how the Packers have developed so far this year?
A: Cliff Christl - Jennings and Jones make plays. So, in a sense, they're playmakers. I also think Jennings has a chance to be a Pro Bowl player. With Jones, it's too early to tell, at least for me it is. I didn't watch him during training camp and don't have that good a feel for him. Again, when I refer to playmakers I'm talking about the elite of the elite. Randy Moss, when he's playing with a purpose, is a difference-maker in every game. Even when other teams shut him down, they leave themselves vulnerable in other areas that the Patriots can then exploit. The same for Terrell Owens. Does Jennings have that kind of upside? I don't think so. Could the Packers win a Super Bowl with Jennings and Jones down the road? Sure, if the two keep improving and stay healthy. But those guys aren't going to carry a team. They wouldn't be your blue players, the one, two or three special players that you need. But they could be among the handful of red players who also matter, just to a lesser degree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave of cedarburg - Hey Buddy, glad to see you have returned for a chat! I would like to know what you think of AJ Hawk. Is he playing up to his draft position, money, etc? To me, he seems like a good player but not great and seems to be a bust or at least a disappointment as a #5 overall draft selection. Thanks
A: Cliff Christl - I wouldn't call him a bust, but he's not making plays that decide games. That was a big interception Sunday, but he was in a rare situation where he was quicker and had better reactions to the ball than a 34-year old running back who hadn't played since Eisenhower was president. Again, with the fifth pick in the draft, you'd like to get a blue player who goes to a bunch of Pro Bowls, dominates games, etc. Hawk hasn't done that and I don't know if he ever will because he was supposed to be about as ready-made a prospect as any that has come out in the last 10 years or so. How much upside is there? But it is just his second year and I think the Packers design their defense knowing that he can run with receivers and has more talent than you're average linebacker. I think they put a lot on his table and he plays every down. Those are pluses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Paul of Eau Claire - Cliff, it's great to have you back. Not to say that the other journalists haven't stepped up in your absence but sometimes you really dont know how good something is until it's gone. You talked about playmakers until you were blue in the face the last few years of your tenure. What are your thoughts on the Packers receivers. Have they gotten better or is Favre just playing better this year than in years past? Secondly, who is playing in the Superbowl this year?
A: Cliff Christl - Thanks, but as Ron Wolf said, cemeteries are filled with people who thought they were irreplaceable. I expected the beat to go on and I'm glad you're satisfied with the coverage you're getting. I think I've answered about the receivers. I also think Favre is playing better and some of that has to do with his receivers. What's my prediction for the Super Bowl? New England vs. Dallas with the Patriots winning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dr. Jim of Fowlerville, MI - Cliff..good to see you back for a chat. Is Aaron Rouse a big drop off from Collins? It seemed Like Collins has the ball in his hands each game only to drop a sure INT for a TD...maybe Aaron can make these plays?
A: Cliff Christl - Again, I don't know much about Rouse. I went to one practice this summer -- the one at old City Stadium -- and sat in the stands and watched Rouse a little. I remember he got caught flat-footed once where he was too upright to get a good backpedal and turn his hips. I wondered about that, but that was one practice. Collins was an average player. If Rouse is good enough to be average rather than a liability, there won't be much dropoff, if any.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jay of Connecticut - Great to have you back. Last year you noted that Favre's accuracy may be slipping, which you took as an indication of his advancing age. What are your thoughts now based on the first 8 games this year?
A: Cliff Christl - He's throwing the ball more accurately. In my combative, pre-retirement days, I might have argued that maybe he worked harder this off-season and reversed the aging process. But I won't. I'll just admit I was wrong. Apparently, his diminishing accuracy last year was due to something other than the age factor. Maybe it was his receivers. That he didn't have confidence in some of them. However, what I find curious, is that Favre's accuracy on the deep ball was never one of his strengths. Ron Wolf always told me that Favre's accuracy short was exceptional, but less so on deep balls. The last few weeks I think he's throwing the deep ball better than ever. And even the Redskin game, I thought was an anomaly. Just to sidetrack here, my tickets are 6 and like 13 rows up, so I get to observe some things I never did in the press box. I remember telling you last year when I sat outside for an exhibition game how Vince Young's athletic ability just jumped out at me. Well, ditto for Sean Taylor. In all my years of covering practice, etc., I've never seen a safety cover ground like that. In that regard, it was like he was playing in a higher league. Watching LaDainian Tomlinson up close this year, there was a little bit of a "Wow!" factor when he had some room to run. But Taylor is the one guy whose athletic ability just leaped out at me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bill of Chicago - I'm looking to buy a jersey (past or present) that best represents the Green Bay Packers. Whose jersey should I buy?
A: Cliff Christl - The obvious answer would be Favre. But Bill, what kind of guy are you? Typical Chicago? Like a cocktail,a cigar, a beautiful woman on your arm? Then how about Johnny Blood? You kind of a gruff, feisty guy? How about Buckets Goldenberg? You serious, tight with a buck, hardly ever imbibe? You could try Don Hutson. Or Bart Starr, although I have no reason to believe he was as tight as Hutson. Would you like a lot of consonants on your back? Then Nitschke might be a good choice. If you're the religious type, how about Reggie White? My favorite Packer as a kid was Herb Adderley and he's a Hall of Famer. If you're a big, happy-go-lucky guy with more strength than you realize -- can you pop the cap off a beer bottle with your bare thumb? -- think about Ed Neal. That would be kind of a thumb-in-the-eye to all your Bear fan friends even though they wouldn't know it. Ed Neal was a blacksmith from Texas who use to break about two or three of Bulldog Turner's helmets -- when those old plastic helmets first came out in the '40s or '50s -- each game. I think Bulldog told me that Ed Neal broke his nose like seven times.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Brad of Stevens Point - The DB's play tough physical football, but have received a lot of penalties. Do you think they may start to get a bad reputation in the eyes of the officials and not receiving the benefit of the doubt on close. That is will they start to treated like Ahmad Carrol?
A: Cliff Christl - I think maybe just the opposite. Let's face it, it's not just the scheme that calls for Harris and Woodson to play the way they do. Anybody out there play pick-up basketball into your late 30s or 40s? What do you do? You pound the you-know-what out of younger players to offset their quickness and to win games. That's what Woodson and Harris are doing. And they're savvy veterans so they'll adjust without changing their style. Carroll was too immature to figure that out. And as time goes on, if Harris and Woodson get called for some cheap penalties -- and that seems to be happening already -- Mike McCarthy will alert the league and the league will caution the officials, and, in turn, the officials might be a little less reluctant to throw their flags. By playoff time, the officials usually let the players decide the games. Plus, I don't know that Harris, especially, could survive by completely changing his game. The speed isn't there. That's why the Packers probably are going to have think about replacing those two corners maybe sooner than you think. But, right now, penalties or not, they're a big reason why the Packers are 7-1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Rich of LA - Thanks for coming back for a guest chat Cliff. Is it because you wanted to say "I told You so" to all of us Matt Millen haters? My Question is about Koren Robinson. Last year you were vehemently opposed to the Packers signing him. Most people thought it wasn't a high risk signing. A two year contract, small signing bonus and no pay while suspended. Well, he hasn't gone on a drunken rampage driving through Green Bay killing innocent civilians as you suggested. In fact, it looks like he may be on the road to recovery and has been given another chance by the commissioner. He may also be able to contribute something as a wide receiver this year. Do you still think the Packers made a terrrible mistake by signing him last season?
A: Cliff Christl - Yes. I still think it was a stupid risk to sign him last year. The Packers were lucky that the commissioner suspended him and saved them from a potentially disastrous development. Last year, before I wrote that column, my sources told me that giving Robinson another chance was the worst thing for him. That that was his biggest problem: Everybody kept making excuses for him, giving him second chances and there was no reason for him to change. What he needed, they said, was tough love not the coddling the Packers were prepared to provide him. Thanks to Roger Goodell, by suspending Robinson for a year and banning him from the Packers' facilities, Robinson seems to have learned a lesson. Now, that he has undergone extensive treatment -- not a month removed from driving drunk at 100 mph -- I have no problem with the Packers giving him another chance. But they should have waited until now to sign him. There was no reason not to wait. Koren Robinson isn't Randy Moss. He had two decent years in Seattle. He never caught more than 5 TD passes in a season. As you saw Sunday, he's really rusty. He couldn't keep his feet under him. But, clearly, there's some talent there and I'd say right now, it's worth it for the Packers to see if they might resurrect his career and get a good second or third receiver out of the deal. But some fans last year acted as though he was going to be the savior. Get real.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Kurt of San Francisco - Hi Cliff, Welcome back. I am proud as ever that the Packers are off to a 7-1 start. However, I'm concerned that they've gotten most of their TD's on long passes. This is fun to watch. But I haven't seen many sustained drives deep into the red zone that result in TD's. I believe we are around 18th in red zone efficiency. Is that something to be concerned about for our playoff hopes?
A: Cliff Christl - The NFL is all about making plays. How many big plays did the Colts make last year on their way to winning the Super Bowl? But the Colts also had Joseph Addai and the Packers have nobody like him. Also, is Favre as good as Peyton Manning; their receivers as good as Harrison, Wayne and Clark were last year? I think that's what you should be asking yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Trevor of Kenora - Hi Cliff-it's great to have you back, even just for the occasional chat. My question for you involves Randy Moss. I wasn't disappointed when the Packers didn't land him, but now I'm starting to wonder. Looking way ahead and being optimistic, let's say the Packers and the Patriots meet in the Super Bowl. If Moss was a Packer (and maybe the Pats don't get that far without Moss, of course), what would Green Bay's chances be of winning the game? Or is New England that much stronger than everyone else, even without Moss? Do you think TT regrets passing on him? Just thinking out loud. Thanks-hope you're enjoying your retirement!
A: Cliff Christl - Put Moss on the Packers and I think they might be able to give the Patriots a game. I'd probably still give the edge to the Patriots, but not by much. As things stand now, if Brady and Moss stay healthy, I can't see anyone else winning the Super Bowl and I can't see how the Packers could beat the Patriots if that ended up being the matchup. Does Ted Thompson regret not signing Moss? I don't want to criticize anyone that I don't have to face any longer, but I think I wrote before I retired that I thought the Packers should go after Moss. Again, the more I watch other teams, I'm convinced more than ever that the scouts who believe that a season usually hinges on two, three, maybe four, five players at the most are right more often than not. Take this year. Let's face it, if the Patriots lost Brady and had to play Matt Cassel, there's no way they'd win the Super Bowl. Ditto for the Colts if they lost Peyton Manning. But with Brady and Manning, those two teams seem to be heads above the others, or at least the Patriots do. Now, I'd say Favre is playing like one of the top five or seven players in the league right now. And Moss would be in that category, too. He might be the third best player. Give the Packers two players of that caliber -- along with all the other good, solid players that they have -- and I think they'd have a legitimate shot at the Super Bowl. Ted Thompson might never get that chance again. What are the chances of the Packers winning a Super Bowl in the first several years after Favre retires? So, yeah, I think he knows that Moss might have been the added dimension that could have put the Packers over the top. Let's face it, 7-1, making the playoffs, all that stuff stirs excitement and makes the Packers feel good about themselves. But as Vince Lombardi said, "There are only two places, first and last." The bottom line is that all that matters in the end is winning the Super Bowl.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jack of Deadwood, SD - Hello Cliff, I've missed you this year. Have you picked a subject to write about for your next book? Who do you think is the most improved player on the Packers this year?
A: Cliff Christl - Dale Hofmann and I combined on a book this summer: "The 25 Greatest Moments in Lambeau Field History." It's just hitting the bookshelves. And I've got a few other ideas that I'm working on at my own pace. Most improved player? Maybe Greg Jennings. Johnny Jolly. But I think Jennings has been the more valuable of the two. He's making plays that win games.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Nasty of LaX - Cliff For years you have been talking about how teams build their team in the draft....how come the Patriots, probably the best team the NFL has seen in the last 10 years have been carried by free agency. Moss, Wes Welker, Stallworth, Colvin, Harrison, Vrabel, and Adalius Thomas were not aquired via draft...do you still strongly believe in this theory????
A: Cliff Christl - I stick by my guns. Tom Brady was a draft pick and he's the No. 1 reason the Patriots are winning. Take him out of the equation and Bill Belichick's winning percentage still might be what it was before he switched from Bledsoe to Brady. Also, the strength of that Patriots' defense is the line. All draft picks. Wilfork and Warren, and now with Seymour coming back, they were all No. 1 picks. In fact, in the back seven, where most of those free agents are is where the Patriots are vulnerable. If somebody beats them this year, that's my guess where the downfall will be. Guys like Harrison, Colvin, Seau and Bruschi, a draft pick, have some years on them. They've also missed time with injuries over the last few years and the Patriots haven't missed any of them. They're role players. And Belichick's philosophy is that he'd rather go with veterans on defense who won't make mistakes and that he can shuttle in and out of the lineup, playing to their strengths and hiding their weaknesses, rather than young, untested guys. That didn't work the last two years because the Patriots didn't have any playmakers on offense to go with Brady. But now with Moss they do. So when you're scoring 40 points a game, those veteran defensive players can be a plus, not a liability. That's why Belichick signed Adalius Thomas. He knew the Colts and the Chargers, also to a degree, exposed some of those weaknesses in his back seven last year. And Moss is a rare talent. He falls in that same category as when the Packers signed Reggie White and the Cowboys and 49ers signed Deion Sanders. Having a player like that on the open market happens maybe once every three, four, five years. Also keep in mind that another strength of the Patriots is their offensive line and their best linemen are draft picks. So Belichick is using free agency much like Ron Wolf. Once he built the foundation mostly through the draft -- let's face it, Favre was in essence a draft pick; a player Wolf fell in love with through his college scouting -- and then completing the puzzle with some free agents. I don't quarrel at all with that blueprint. Yes, free agents have benefited the Patriots. They've dramatically improved what had been a glaring weakness: Wide receiver. But the core of that team was built through the draft.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Alex Scribner of Vancouver, WA - Cliff, I'm interested in your take on what has been the biggest reason for the failure of the Packer running game thus far in 2007. Has it been the lack of a top notch RB or more the poor play of the O-Line? Would a Marshawn Lynch - if he had been available to the Packers - even been able to do much with such O-line play? And finally, if the running game does not become more of a consistent threat, can the Packers really go deep into the playoffs? Thanks!
A: Cliff Christl - Almost every scout that I've ever talked to said great runners make a running game, more than the other way around. And what do the Packers have? Pretty pedestrian backs. Yes, I realize Larry Johnson is really handicapped by his line. Any back needs good blocking. But I'll guarantee you this: If you put Adrian Peterson on the Packers, he might not have 1,000-plus yards already and a 6.6 average, but I'll bet he'd be close to 1,000 and averaging better than 5 a carry. What makes him special? All it takes is a crease and he can go the distance. His numbers come from his long runs, and what he does in the open field, mostly on his own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Sam of Chicago - Hi Cliff, Welcome back and thanks for your time! Believe me, while the others are doing a very admirable job, you are missed. Two questions. First is one I posed to Mr. McGinn but he declined to answer. Alcorn State, San Jose State, and Western Michigan are our top three receivers' (in no particular order) alma mater. Is this an indication of the dilution of talent in the NFL, a coincidence, a reflection of the scouts' talent, some mixture, or none of the above? Second, I asked numerous times over the last 8-9 years, and even was featured on Packers Round Table once, if there was a fundamental difference between the picks Brett threw when Holmgren ran the show and the picks he threw under Sherman/Rhodes. Maybe a little I told you so, but don't you think that journalists should now step up and explain why they didn't question that then but now are crediting MMC with Brett's renaissance for challenging him on his sometimes stupid decisions? You can go back and check the chats, I have never said Brett was anything less than one of the greatest, but I remember the distinction between Lambeau Field giving him a standing ovation for throwing the ball away and coaches making the disclaimer that Brett will be Brett after stupid picks. I think that journalists should acknowledge their mistake while they praise McCarthy for his fortitude. To begin this healing process, I will acknowledge that I thought that Sherman was given the short end of the stick (a contradiction to my wanting him to challenge Favre) and thoght of him as a top ten coach while wondering where McCarthy came from. Thanks again and hope to hear from you again soon Cliff. My 8 month old was a Hell's Angel for Halloween. Keep Riding!
A: Cliff Christl - I don't know the answer to your question about the wide receivers. Maybe it's just a coincidence. Maybe it's all the factors you suggested. Let's face it, there are good players at that level of college ball, although the Packers seemed to be almost alone in their admiration for Jones. Sounds like a scouting find to me. As for Favre's interceptions, I don't think there's one answer. And I don't buy that McCarthy is that much more demanding than Sherman. Maybe that's part of it. I think the biggest factor is that Favre realizes that he doesn't have to win games by himself. He has a better defense, a better group of receivers. If you're the quarterback and you line up with Robert Ferguson split wide and Antonio Chatman in the slot, and Bubba Franks at tight end, how confident would you be that somebody is going to make a play to win a game other than you by maybe doing something wild and crazy? When I was working, I couldn't believe how some people in the business thought Ferguson and Chatman had some ability. Ferguson should have been shipped out a year or two earlier; and Chatman never should have been in the league. He was the perfect example of what Tom Landry used to talk about: You make exceptions for runts or guys who can't run fast, and you lose -- forever. You watch Favre this year and he's not always throwing into tight quarters. Jennings, especially, has a knack for creating space; I think even much moreso than Driver. And I had an interesting conversation this summer with an old NFL tight end who had followed Favre's career. And he talked about how from his experience when quarterbacks throw a lot of interceptions to linebackers and safeties, it's often because of problems at tight end. He said it's the tight end who has to keep those players honest by stretching the field, finding the seams behind linebackers, etc. Without that, he said safeties and linebackers are always jumping the other receiver's routes. That was one ex-players' theory. But maybe that's why this new regime finally put Franks on the bench. And maybe just the presence of Donald Lee is making a difference, making defenses play more honest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike Gisel of Davenport, IA - Cliff, The regression of our young linemen this year is very discouraging. Is it still too early to judge whether Colledge, Spitz, & Moll have what it takes to be solid players? Also you have to give TT credit, he has put together quite a team, and he did it the right way.
A: Cliff Christl - The play of the line hasn't been what was expected, but sometimes it takes time at that position. Mike Wahle, Marco Rivera weren't overnight sensations. So time will tell. As for Ted Thompson, I agree. I couldn't believe the criticism he was getting last off-season. People criticized him for drafting Justin Harrell. Those people had to be clueless. I don't know if Harrell will be a player. There's risk with every draft pick. But criticizing someone for taking a big defensive linemen, especially on a team that's facing the prospect of Brett Favre retiring sometime soon? That's one of the most critical positions in football. You could never have enough good ones. And if you're ever going to win a Super Bowl with defense, you're going to have to have a great defensive line. Plus, don't those people realize that just drafting Harrell probably put a bur up some of those other linemen's butts and got them worried about their own jobs and created competition. And criticizing Thompson for letting Ahman Green go? The guy had been in deline for three years. He was an injury waiting to happen. He rushed for 1,059 yards last year. He was 19th in the league in rushing. He was a pedestrian back. What kind of loss was that? One of the things I heard GMs, scouts, etc., repeat time after time was that you have to m move on. Well, it was time for the Packers to move on at running back, whether they had someone to replace Green or not. The only mistake I thought Thompson made was not getting the deal done for Randy Moss.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mark of Beaver Dam - Hello again Cliff, you have been sorely missed. I was just thinking to myself last week, I wonder who on this current Packers team would qualify as playmakers. So, since you're back at least for a day, please let me ask you, who do you see as the Packers key playmakers at this point? Just the usual suspects or any surprises? Personally I've been most impressed by Johnny Jolly and Aaron Kampman to this point.
A: Cliff Christl - As I wrote last season, the Packers have a lot of good players. In terms of good players, depth, etc., I don't think they take a backseat to anybody. What team is deeper on the defensive line? Their guards and running backs are nothing special, but they don't have a lot of weaknesses. You can thank Ted Thompson's philosophy of hording draft picks and recognizing that it's a young man's league for all of that. He has turned the Packers into a young, hungry team. As George Young, the old NY Giant GM who was around forever and won Super Bowls, used to say: Just like the Marines, that's what you want. And I think the other big difference this year is that Brett Favre is playing like a blue player again. Kampman might be close. And they've got some red players, maybe several, depending on how liberal your grading system. But, again, to win the Super Bowl, you need at least one blue player, probably two or three. Last year, as I wrote then, there were three teams that had a shot at winning it all: The Colts because of Manning, the Patriots because of Brady and the Chargers because of Tomlinson. The Patriots and maybe the Colts seem to be in a league of their own this year. But other than maybe the Cowboys, the Packers might have the next best playmaker in Favre and the best team that he's had around him since 2003.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ann of Amherst, NH - Cliffie!!! I miss your eagle eye and cool analysis for football detail. It's great to have you doing a visiting chat (or whatever this is called). For the past 3 years, you have patiently explained to anyone who questioned you how Favre would still be considered at least a mid-tier QB, that he was good for at least 2 or 3 wins a year, in spite of the interceptions. I hope you feel vindicated; Favre is now generally considered the 3rd best QB playing right now, behind the B&M guys. What, exactly, do you see him doing differently? Is this the McCarthy effect? Or his receivers? (BTW: I did a statistical analysis of Favre's INTs that made it onto ColdHardFootballFacts.com, showing that, in his overall body of work, Favre's INTs are no worse than Elway's or Marino's.) Thanks for making a cyber-stop at PackerPlus.
A: Cliff Christl - I agree. Brady and Manning are the top two QBs in the game. Carson Palmer might be next, but due to injuries and all kinds of other stuff, the Bengals are a train wreck and it seems to have affected him. So Favre might be the third best quarterback. I think Tony Romo, Roethlisberger, Eli Manning and Vince Young in his own way are all young, ascending qbs. But I don't see a great defense in the NFC. That means to win, a team is going to need a good quarterback and I only see three other possibilities beside the Packers: Dallas, the Giants and maybe the Saints. I think McNabb and the Eagles have grown old. And I'm not even sold on Brees being able to win three playoff games without a lot of help. I like the Redskins' safeties, but I'm not sold on Campbell yet. So I don't know if that team could be a factor or not. So was I right about Favre? Thanks for the credit, but I thought he was slipping in his ability to make plays, that he was losing his accuracy and that he no longer could lead a team to the Super Bowl. I obviously was too harsh in that assessment. At the same time, I disagreed with those who didn't rank him among the top 100 players in the league or even top 50; or who thought Donald Driver was more important to the Packers or the better player. Come on. I saw ratings that had Jon Kitna and Jeff Garcia ahead of Favre. Those are your consummate journeymen. But that's all you need in the NFC this year to be in the race. Just look at some of the starters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike of Ankeny, IA - Cliff, First, its a real treat to have you back so thank you. I've been very impressed with McCarthy since he arrived in GB. His macho attitude seems to carry over to his players and this in turn has made them seem (on TV at least) like a more physical team which has been translating ultimately into more victories. Your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - You can't help but be impressed. Remember the day he was hired and all the people on our chat screaming for Ted Thompson's head for hiring a guy with no better credentials? That's why it's best for all of us: Sportswriters, fans, etc., to wait until you've accumulated some knowledge about a person or subject before offering an opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John Casper of Milwaukee - Hi Cliff, hope everything is well with you. If you care to comment, do you have any opinions on Bellechick and spygate?
A: Cliff Christl - No strong opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeremy of the Prairie - Cliff, I've missed reading your biting commentary. After some time away from the journalism business do you still feel that an objectionable journalist can't also be a fan? It seems those journalists that proclaim their non-fanhood have the most negative views about the Packers while hardly ever giving credit to the team. How is being negative being objectionable? (I remember your Favre, time between HOF QBs article so I definitely can't say that about you.) It just seems there is a lot of negative focus directed at a 7-1 team.
A: Cliff Christl - No. I still don't think you can be a fan and do justice to your job as a journalist. I read the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the Green Bay Press-Gazette daily and I don't see the negative coverage you're talking about. The reporters dig and analyze and critique sometimes negatively developments with the team, but that's their job as impartial observers. If the national media has been critical, so what? There are some astute observers among them. But a lot of them have no clue. They might be offering opinions without ever having seen the Packers play a complete game. My suggestion would be: Be a little more discerning about the people you read and listen to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Arsenio of Knock Some Heads, CA - Cliff. Since we didn't get to hear your pre-season thoughts, what was your prediction for the team, and who have been the biggest surprises? And would you have bet a buck versus a grand that the Pack would be 7-1 at this point?
A: Cliff Christl - I didn't watch training camp, so I wasn't in position to gauge that. I liked what Thompson did during the off-season and knew they had a young team, so I suspected they'd be better. I didn't think they'd be 7-1. But I'm a big fan of addition by subtraction. Last year, they were playing Green, Henderson, Franks, Ferguson until he got hurt. Those guys had been descending players for at least two, three years. If you have that many descending players, you're going to be going the wrong way in the standings. So I liked the fact Thompson was getting rid of the deadwood and opening positions for young players to compete for. I knew they had depth and some talent in the defensive line, maybe the most important area in football other than quarterback. And I knew they had some capable veterans at the other key positions: Cornerback, left tackle. What I didn't know was that Urlacher was going to suffer from an arthritic back and that Tommie Harris wouldn't be fully recovered from his injury, so that the Bears were going to go completely in the tank. I think we all knew that their quarterback would be a liability again. But they got to the Super Bowl last year largely because of four players -- Briggs and Hester being the others -- and now two of those have really slipped. That's part of what's behind the Packers' success here. There aren't many good teams in the NFC; and that was obvious even before camp started. But it became more obvious after the qbs started going down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Darrin of Longmont - Cliff, Hope you're enjoying your retirement --- we miss you dearly. Cliff, will you please take this opportunity to gloat a bit and tell the Matt Millen bashers of the world, "I told you so."
A: Cliff Christl - I'm not overly impressed with what Millen has done. I think the Lions could easily falter the second half of this season or next year. Again, they don't have enough special players. But I'll stand by my original position: This is football, not brain surgery. Millen was no less qualified to get a crack at being a GM than most other people. Some guys in the league and their sycophants resented it. I didn't. Plus, I never believed in criticizing people long-distance. For the most part, if I was going to rip somebody, then it would be somebody with the Packers, the team I covered and the people I faced.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Yuri Zanow of New York City - So Cliff, what have you been up to lately? P.S. Thanks for the tips about visiting Green Bay. The Union Hotel and Zesty's frozen custard were terrific and I had a great time visiting City Stadium the night before the Packers practiced there this summer. I also enjoyed staying at the James Street Inn, especially the riverwalk.
A: Cliff Christl - All good choices on your part.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Leon De Commie of Huevelmeyer, Wisconsin - Cliff, what is the view around the league of the strength of the packer organization as a whole. Is the team viewed with respect by the other owners, or is the team a bunch of rubes with our local boy board?
A: Cliff Christl - Good question. I've heard some things that make me wonder what's going to happen when Bob Harlan steps down. It used to be that the board of directors was more an honorary position, but that now some of the newer additions want to have more of a say, etc. You can't have 45 people running an NFL franchise. You can't have seven. Most of these board members and executive committee members have been highly successful, but I've known enough of them over the years to know that most don't know diddly about how personnel people in the NFL think and what it takes to win. As a result, in the past, most of them were smart enough to realize that and didn't try to interfere with the president and his inner circle. The most recent people added to the executive committee from what I understand were John Jones' choices. So there was at least one change there that I'm not sure was for the good. I heard all summer that John Fabry had some health problems and now I've heard that he took a leave from the executive committee. So the organization seems to be in a state of flux. I think it would be wise to forget about the search committee, forget about letting the board get involved, and let Bob Harlan, and maybe retired member John Underwood, and one or two of others of the old trusted guard on the executive committee and just let them pick the next president rather risking this thing turning into a circus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mad Dog of East Texas - Mr. Cliff Christl, I just got home at 1:10am and saw that you are back. I figured you were to busy on your autobiography "Often Mistaken, Never In Doubt" to be back but since you are taking the time, I thought I would to. Greg Bedard has taken the position that getting Moss for a 4th round pick was not neccessary and now that we are 7-1 he feels this more or less proves his point. He will not however defend that mindset with much gusto other than to just say it time and time again. At least when you were wrong you showed to defend the indefensible all the time. But in keeping with your theory that a few "differencemakers" are the ones who determines a teams success, how in the world does throwing a 4th round pick in order to get Moss constitute a mistake. I know we are 7-1, I think Thompson know's his stuff, and MCarthy can coach very well, and the team is putting together a good nucleus, but how does adding a true difference maker constitute a mistake. I think the addition of Moss would have made a pretty good situation even better and our offense even tht much more of a threat. Belichick had a great team and went out trying to make a great team better and that seems to be the thing that sets him among the elite coaches of all time. In your humble and well reasoned opinion, are you in the Bedard camp where "pretty good" equals "outstanding" and Moss was not worth a 4th round pick, or is this one decision if we could do it all over again knowing everything we do no we absolutely go get Moss. If you see Mr. Bedard, you might mention to him that Moss is having one of those....um you know....world record years. Oh yeah. good news on McMillen. After 40 or so top 5 picks, he might finally be proving he is great. How did you spot the greatness so early? All in all I hope your beer is cold.
A: Cliff Christl - Mad Dog, I miss you too. Love and kisses. And, yes, I think Randy Moss would have made this a much better team. How could he not? He's the best receiver in the game and one of the top three, four, five players. Yes, he has been a distraction, at times, in the past, but I don't see him -- or Terrell Owens for that matter -- causing any problems this year on teams that are winning. If I was Randy Moss and my quarterback was Andrew Walter I wouldn't be happy, either, or see much sense in running routes all out. It has been a pleasure. So long.