Another Cliff Christl Chat already??: 3/30/06
THURSDAY, March 30, 2006, 12:37 p.m.
What would the Packers need to trade Walker?
The old school of thought would be to let Javon Walker sit, stew and hold out as long as he wanted. If he reported at some point, play him, put the franchise tag on him at the end of the season and let him stew some more. And that's one of the options the Packers should consider.
But the Philadelphia Eagles learned last year with Terrell Owens that it probably doesn't pay to cut off one's nose to spite one's face. So the Packers probably shouldn't rule out a trade either, even though they're never going to cover their losses and get what Walker's worth.
So what should they consider accepting as a compromise? Probably a second-round draft pick. That's what they got for Mike McKenzie and they turned the picked into a player of almost equal value, safety Nick Collins. In fact, Collins could wind up having a better pro career than McKenzie, although he plays a less valuable position.
If another team offers a third maybe it would be worth considering. That's a tougher call. But if the best offer for Walker is a fourth, then let him sit, stew and hold out even if they have to cut him at some point. A fourth-round pick isn't something to sneeze at. But why let another team rob you blind and also gain Walker's services for the full year? Why give Walker an opportunity to win games for another team for so little in return? Why let Walker dictate the terms of his departure for a mere fourth-round pick?
On Javon Walker's stepfather
Kudos to Charles Goldsmith. All of us in the newspaper business - or at least all of us should - appreciate it when somebody pops off and makes for good copy. Goldsmith, Javon Walker's stepfather, couldn't have been on more of a roll during his interview this week with Bob McGinn of the Journal Sentinel. He was singing.
But his complaints about the Packers' organization, which presumably reflected Walker's complaints, suggested a real naivete for someone identified as a vice president for a financial services company in Houston.
The Packers treated Bubba Franks unfairly by making him the ninth-highest-paid tight end in the game despite his pedestrian skills as a receiver? They treated Ahman Green unfairly because they didn't tear up his contract before he was hurt? They treated Aaron Kampman unfairly by paying him big bucks for being just a solid player?
And if those players were all treated so unfairly why they did all re-sign with Green Bay?
Doesn't Mr. Goldsmith understand the Packers are in business? Does he stand in the door of his financial services company and hand out checks out of the kindness of his heart?
Makes you want to go down there and do business with him. It also makes you wonder if he and his stepson didn't both score 6 on the Wonderlic.
Sending a message
By signing Charles Woodson, the Packers could accomplish two objectives. One, they'd likely improve their cornerback situation even if Woodson might be more suited at this point to play safety. Two, they'd send a message to Ahmad Carroll and the rest of the team that standards were being raised. It would let Carroll know that if he planned to be a starter this year he better stop being a punk and become a football player.
Certainly, on paper, the Packers would look more formidable on defense with Al Harris and Woodson as their starting corners, and Carroll as their nickel back. Actually, the role might be a good fit for Carroll.
That's not to say the Packers should open up the bank for Woodson. But it might be worth giving him more than they might think he's worth.
Q: Shannon of Fort Worth - In my NFL Picks contest this fall, I don't think I'm going to pick GB to win in any matchup. What cemented that decision? GB letting Longwell go to Minn (gag) and signing Cowboy castoff and frequent DFW sports radio derision-magnet Billy Cundiff as a replacement. This team let go of the one guy who was the difference in countless games over the last X seasons. And please don't mention Favre. He doesn't kick. I know Longwell missed some kicks, but he was more dependable than not. He was this team's MVP. Cundiff was a waste of time in Dallas and will be even more useless in the unpredictable weather of GB.
A: Cliff Christl - Shannon, we're going to start with you and we're going to start the chat early. Hope nobody minds. But it has climbed over 60 degrees and if I start early, I can finish early and maybe get the Harley out for the first spin of the year. Now, Shannon, to your question. But doesn't Cundiff have a better leg on kickoffs? There are fans on this chat who have claimed that the Packers haven't had a bigger problem than Longwell's kickoffs since they brought in a disc jockey in the late '60s to tutor their kickers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bill of Fort Wayne - Cliff, Thanks for the chat. This offseason has gotten under the skin of many Packer backers to be sure. We were obviously use to the winning ways of the 92-04 Packers and watching the debacle last year and the slow, deliberate, non- flashy style of Thompson is tough to accept. However Thomson's M.O. seems to me to be similar to New England's style in 2001. They were expected to be bad in 01 but won it all. I'm not suggesting green bay will be a contender this year but accumulating mid-tier players and building around draft picks is the right way to build as the patriots proved. Do you think all the critisism of Thomson is simply because the fans want him to sign glitzy names and he is not doing it or is it frustration by the fans because re-building takes time and we want a winner now?
A: Cliff Christl - The '06 Packers aren't going to be the '01 Patriots. I'll guarantee that. Probably the reason fans are so disgruntled is that they have no patience. And this rebuilding effort is going to require patience. The last time, it took a quarter of a century of patience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Hoosierjohn of Columbia City - Cliff, Where do you think the 1995 playoff win in SanFransisco rates among the Packers all-time most important wins. I really feel it put us over the top as far as becoming a real contender even though we lost to Dallas. Where will football historians rate that in Packer history?
A: Cliff Christl - It might have been a stirring victory at the time, but I don't think there's much carryover from year to year. I don't think it had any bearing on the Packers winning it all the next year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Staciebelle of Chicago - Cliff, What is the "It"factor that guys like Tom Brady have that makes him so special. I mean guys like Brett and Elway have great natural tools so its not so hard to expect them to be great even though some guys with great physical tools fail. But a guy like Brady or Montana seem to rise above mediocre physical abilities to reach stardom. Is it thier smarts or thier drive or desire or what? Also, at what point do you think they show it? I mean Brady was not great at Michigan and sat on the bench as a rookie. Could a guy like Rogers be like Brady eventually?
A: Cliff Christl - First of all, Brady has impressive physical tools. He might throw a more accurate deep ball than any quarterback in the game. Montana was talented, too. Maybe they're talented in a different way than Elway and Favre, and it took scouts longer to recognize that. So let's dismiss the absurd notion that these guys possessed no more than mediocre physical ability. Could Rodgers be like Brady? Rodgers is talented enough to be a good quarterback in the NFL. He has the tools. So does Joey Harrington. But as you noted, it takes more than physical ability to cut it as an NFL quarterback. But back to Rodgers. My guess is that he'll never be as good as Tom Brady. Why? Because Brady is one of the best ever. And Rodgers won't be an Elway or Favre, either. Because, like Brady, he's talented in a different way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: JT of Summerfield, FL - Hey big fan, and listen up Milwaukee! Cherish the sports coverage that you have with the JS, b/c it is not like that in every city. Don't take for granted the excellant work they do...What does your gut say about Rodgers at QB? If you're TT and Rodgers doesn't give you that special feeling, do you draft another QB at No.5 even though you will not get an immediate return, or do you pick s/o that you think can contribute this year? Thanks...
A: Cliff Christl - I don't think they can dismiss drafting a quarterback. But they'd have to strongly believe that they were a taking a quarterback who was going to be a sure star. If not, then it would be a huge gamble. Maybe it would be worth taking. No franchise figures to have much long-term success without one. But it would be a gutsy move on Thompson's part, especially if Favre announced first that he was coming back. And I just don't know if Thompson is sure enough of himself to make that pick. This will be just his second draft in charge and he hasn't been in the league that long, relatively speaking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Arsenio of Los Angeles - Favre's legacy will be as much about the way he approached the game as it is his stats. That's why I'm kind of amazed by the way he's not playing team ball right now. I know you don't believe in such high-falootin' words like "team" and "sacrifice," but the fact is, after his stance with Walker last year, basically calling him on the carpet for being selfish, I think Favre would want to set a better example here and either commit to the team for several years, or quit and let them rebuild properly. I don't see how one more year of Favre is going to benefit the team, other than maybe getting them to 7 and 9 this year. It's just not worth it. I'd rather we take a potential franchise QB this year, bottom out at 2 and 14 like the 49'ers, and hope for a better future.
A: Cliff Christl - To contemplate retirement is being selfish? Is Los Angeles on this planet?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bon of Norwalk,OH - Lets dump Favre(spoiled king) and Walker(idiot) and move on. I'm sick of Brett playing all this bullsh_t. We can't be much worse than last year. Push Humpty-Dumpy over the wall.
A: Cliff Christl - It would be fine by me if he retired. I miss those post-game conferences, interviewing the likes of a shellshocked Bill Troup or a glassy-eyed Jack Concannon. I wouldn't mind a year of covering Kerry Collins as a starting quarterback. I'd feel like Yogi Berra. I'd be experiencing deja vu all over again. I think Kerry Collins is Vince Ferragamo reincarnated. Same resume. They're built about the same aren't they? Neither one takes care of the ball. Both move like they're standing in wet cement. Let the good times roll.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: robert trefny of london - You have maintained that the game is made up of a few 'difference makers' and a bunch of others who basically 'don't mess it up' for the playmakers. If so, should the Packers try to trade up to get the player with the highest potential (if that player is not available at pick 5), resign themselves that 2006 will be another down year (leading to another high pick next year) and hope that these two picks become playmakers, as opposed to Ted Thompson's apparently cherished strategy of trading down and getting more potential 'solid players' (but not maximizing the possibility of finding a true playmaker or two?
A: Cliff Christl - Sure, it would be worth moving up to land Reggie Bush or Mario Williams. But it isn't going to happen because the whole league values difference-makers. So unless the Packers want to part with their second pick and maybe more, they probably couldn't move up even one or two spots much less three or four. And certainly the Packers don't have any veterans that anybody would want in exchange for moving down from one of the top four picks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mark of Salem, Oregon - The packers seem in dire straits with respect to two postitions: linebacker and wide receiver. I'm hoping they can fill the linebacker position in the draft. I believe it is a position that a rookie can have an impact on. Do you agree? Any ideas what they are planning? As for wide receiver, with the Walker situation in full bloom and with the doubts about Murphy and Ferguson (sadly, we now realize how badly the team missed when they drafted him over Chambers), this area "scares" me and also makes me wonder about Farve. His receivers could be no better than last year. Assuming they do draft a receiver, they can take several years to "figure out" the pro game. Any ideas what they have in mind here? Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - Linebackers are typically able to play early, partly because they usually don't have to play every down. Two of the three starting linebackers on most teams are part-time players. Receivers generally take longer to learn the game. Not many rookies have made a splash there in the last decade or two. But it's hard to imagine the Packers playing with any worse than the likes of Chatman and Thurman.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: William Jones of Dallas - Why wouldn't you trade waker for moulds of the Bills. Moulds seems to be a better receiver and he not hurt. They both want traded.
A: Cliff Christl - Does Moulds have anything left? I'm not sure. I think you'd rather try to get a second-round pick and draft a wide receiver.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: RH of Texas - Cliff- It's Tuesday afternoon so clearly this has to be the first question and should be posted first. I don't want to be tied with Tommy Kramer for anything. First of all I don't really know squat about how a football team should be run at any level, but I do feel that things are 180 degrees different now in the way talent is aquired and personnel decisions are being handled. I don't have any question about Ted Thompson's resolve. No one can say if it will pan out, but he is clearly in charge and there is no doubting he has some backbone and that's good. Everyone wants to model themselves after the Patriots but no one really wants to have the patience, but your take has always been that a team has to have elite playmakers to win big and without that it won't happen. But how elite? Injuries are such a big factor during a season, and if your team has a bunch of players who are just decent and maybe 3 elite players, if one elite guy goes down, the season is over. I was reading Red Auerbach and he says you can not win without good players, but you also have to have good coaching to go along with it. He said you need both to win. So if you put a players ability on a 10 scale, wouldn't 6 players at the 7 or 8 level be better than 3 guys at the 9 and 10 level. Clearly the Patriots have talented players, but only Brady offensively seemed elite but they had a lot of good players and a lot of depth. The Patriots seemed to have a lot of "good" players that were disciplined and smart and that depth seemed to payoff towards the end of the season. I could be wrong here, but Thomspon seems to be cutting the deadweight and trying to build depth at the level of good players. It seems that is what he used free agency for. to upgrade the deadweight players and the needed bigger talent is coming through the draft. So as you observe Thompson and McCarthy, do you get a sense of competence from them and not to knock Sherman, but does the present system under Thompson/McCarthy seem way better than the decions making deal under Sherman/Novak/Rossley. In short are the Packers a better run business now than over the Sherman's tenure?
A: Cliff Christl - You weren't even in the top 10 today. Cosmo Iacavazzi finished better. The problem with your theory is that a lot of other teams have six or seven players at the 7 or 8 level. They're pretty commonplace. The Patriots had at least two elite players, not just one. Richard Seymour probably is as good a defensive lineman as there is in the league and it hurt them to lose him for several games last year. When he came back, they got better. Rodney Harrison might have been a third, too. He could be a Hall of Famer and the Patriots weren't the same team without him this year. But they also didn't have the core players they had in the past and they suffered some injuries. You're right. Injuries play a huge role and if you lose one of your elite players, you're typically not going to win. But the 49ers had just three elite players for a long time -- Montana, Rice and Lott -- and they stayed healthy and look at the results. No, you need special players and I don't understand why some people can't grasp that. Have you ever played anything where the best players weren't the most important? It was true when we played at recess.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ty of Milwaukee - Hey Cliff, When it rains it pours. Wanted to get your thoughts on Javon Walker who looks like he is not coming back. There are rumors that Denver is interested in Walker for a fourth rounder. With yet another need to add to our long list I just cannot imagine why Brett would come back to a team that will be worse then it was last year. Your thoughts..?
A: Cliff Christl - I agree. There's not much reason to think the Packers are going to be any better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bob of Little Chute - Thanks for these always enjoyable chats. For all intents and purposes, whomever quarterbacks the GBPs in 2006 currently hikes the ball to himself and will require a quicker than average release since he also lacks starting guards. Given the new blocking scheme to be installed, what attributes can we expect TT to look for in the interior linemen he pursues so the QB isn't forced to take life-saving measures, surrendering the ball overhead like second grader playing a school yard game of smeer the politically incorrect? Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - Typically, Alex Gibbs' lines in Denver and Atlanta included smaller, more agile linemen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave B of Iowa City - Cliff, I seem to be noticing a trend this offseason that the Packers are looking at and signing players who have wonderlic scores more in the 20's (Manuel, Taylor, Kampman, Boerighter), and that a lot of the people they've let go (with the exception of Flanigan) seem to be those who are complainers, like Grady (contract), Longwell (holder), Diggs (PT) and Fisher (PT). Is this coincidence, or a chemistry experiment by Thompson and McCarthy, to try and get the team to play smarter and harder? What does that say for the future of Walker?
A: Cliff Christl - Diggs and Fisher complainers? Or not smart? I don't agree with your premise, much less see anything to read into.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Rick of Woodbury MN - Cliff... No question, just an observational rant from your last few chats. Sell your season tickets, the New and Improved Delusional Spending Vikings are a Lock to win the NFC North!!! Give me a break... The Six Queens new owner is spending money like he is a lonely man in the red light distict. All this in an effort to try and get the Norskies out of the black hole of last year in time to pass a new stadium deal. The Vikings have proven that free agent acquisitions do not win championships. Not even of divisional nature. Granted they have a new coaching regime that will impart more dicipline, but they still have an immobile 37 year old quarterback that in my opinion is highly suspect to make it through half the season. And if Burleson goes to play for the Green and Gold Legend, who does he throw the ball to? I know I should not forget that they do have the hairless wonder Mike McMahon as a backup and he did almost pull off a miracle on Turkey Day against the Pack. Say what you want TT bashers, but he seems to be a man of conviction. Great leaders start with a plan and vision they stick to. Remains to be seen what the longterm outcome will be, but I would rather have a GM with a concrete sequential plan rather than a random abstract spend no matter what approach. Let's not forget what a GM with cloudy direction that reaches on a 3rd round punter, injury prone (Johnson) and underachieving (Hunt) D-Linemen in Free Agency can do to the long term prospects of your team. Wolf and Holmgren were masters of evaluating and drafting talent and then coaching it up to NFL ability and accountability. Thompson seems to be following in his mentors mold.
A: Cliff Christl - I agree. I admire that Thompson has a philosophy and that he's sticking to it. He might fail. But the approach is really the only one that has ever been successful in the NFL. Again, name me one team that has bought a championship?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike Salter of Stevens Point - Why don't the Packers look at more big name free agents like Arrington etc.
A: Cliff Christl - Arrington hasn't signed. I'm assuming that's because nobody thinks he's worth what he's currently asking. Also "big name" means nothing. Just because a name is recognizable to fans doesn't mean the player hasn't started to slide or doesn't carry a medical red flag or whatever. And, finally, most free agents aren't the answer or they wouldn't be free agents. Their teams would want to keep them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tyrel Whting of Polson(MT) - Do you thnk it is possible that the Packers would trade down with their #5 pick to the Broncos and take Chad Jackson at #15 and Greenway or Sims at #22? Thanks!!!!
A: Cliff Christl - I think it would be a mistake to trade the fifth-pick in the draft and drop to 15. So they can get two more Bubba Frankses and Ahmad Carrolls? That's all they need. They need to start rebuilding with some real studs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: wm endress of w terre haute IN - cliff:do you assess j walker to be as dumb and immature as he seems,or do you think he wants to be a t. o. jr.I suspect that he and his agent are concerned about his injury and are playing this game to try and sucker some team into giving him big money. I also understand that he lived in jamal reynolds previous house.considering this to be true the packers may want to purchase the house and either have it exorcised by a priest or donate it to the fire dept. for fire training.What's your take.
A: Cliff Christl - I think he probably genuinely hates Green Bay and wants out. But I also think he's clueless about his worth and what he's risking. I wouldn't be surprised if what happened to Mike McKenzie happens to Walker: He goes somewhere else and gets suckered into another bad deal. Contrary to what his stepfather thinks, the Packers aren't the only team that watches what they sprend and are prudent about extending contracts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Prime Time of Kimberly - Although its early I like what Mr. Thompson is doing. He's keeping his head in a market where others are losing theirs. Nate Burleson and Steve Hutchinson's contracts are prime examples of that. Thompson needs to continue to do things his way. He needs to prudently manage the Packers cash and make value investments where he sees fit. Manuel and Pickett seem like good finds. Dropping Bambi(Chapman)and Diggs is basically getting rid of damaged goods.
A: Cliff Christl - I don't see much to criticize him about. His biggest and most important decision will be that fifth pick. That's a decision that may make or break him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John of Michigan City - Cliff, Thanks for the chat. It seems to me the important thing for the Packers right now is to focus on keeping people with upside and relieve themselves of players on the downside (unless necessary until players with more ypside come along). To me the upcoming draft picks along with Nick Collins, Hawkins and maybe Carroll in the secondary, Barnett at LB, Colin Cole, Pickett, Montgomery, Corey Williams and maybe Jenkins constitute the defensive players with some upside. Offensively, Croston, Wells, Gado and Rogers would seem to be the players with upside. Aren't these guys and any other young Free agents like Boerigter and manuel the ones Green Bay should focus on and forget the Big Name glitzy players with reputations but no upside? To me Thompson is working this the right way but do you agree and do you see any other upside players on the roster I missed?
A: Cliff Christl - Agree. Those players are all important. They're nothing special, but if they all develop into solid starters -- although that won't happen -- there will be a foundation there. Then if they get a Pro Bowl player with the fifth pick and another in the first round next year there'd be some hope. That is, of course, if Rodgers pans out. Otherwise that search could take 50 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Javon's stepbrother of Not Green Bay - I've never read more incendiary comments than those uttered by Walker's stepfather. He basically blasted every Packer. He makes McKenzie look classy. My question: Is there a good solution for the Packers? And what's the most they can get for Walker? I can't imagine anyone giving them a D1, can you?
A: Cliff Christl - Check today's blog.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Adam of Whitewater - I am a fan of Brett Favre, but isnt it a little ridiculous that the Packers have given him all this time to make his decision of whether or not to come back? Brett should be a professional and make up his mind and not leave everyone waiting
A: Cliff Christl - Why? Camp doesn't start until July. Don Hutson announced his retirement like every year for seven years and sometimes didn't change his mind until the eve of the opener.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mel Kiper IV of Draft Central - With these three players available at the 5 pick and Mario Williams gone, whom do the Packers choose: 1. Vince Young 2. Jay Cutler 3. AJ Hawk
A: Cliff Christl - Is D'Brickashaw Ferguson gone? How about Vernon Davis? He might have a bigger upside than the other three and certainly a better chance of being a playmaker than Hawk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: paul of eau claire - If the Packers tried to trade Aaron Rodgers, what kind of draft pick would they get for him this year? A D2? I'm guessing the best would be a 3, probably a 4.
A: Cliff Christl - All it takes is one buyer, but I'm not sure they could get a 2. Nobody knows what they'd be getting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Big John of Bremerton, WA - Cliff, what can GB do to rectify the vacancy at both right and left guard for the upcoming season? Any free agent help is now gone. Does Thompson plan on striking gold by drafting 2 starters after we take Hawk or Williams? Also, did we miss the boat on Nate Newton, or was he too washed up to help? P.S. It's 60 degrees and sunny out here. Did you get that scooter out of the garage yet? LOL
A: Cliff Christl - Again other than breaking the bank for Steve Hutchinson, the Packers might be just as well off trying to develop their own young linemen: Barry, Whitticker, Coston, White, Wells. How many free agent linemen had any more promise than those guys? That's how you build a team.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Christopher of New York, NY - Cliff - I love your chats and your no-nonsense, realistic approach. My "question" is more of a comment. Is Javon Walker's stepfather, Charles Goldsmith serious when he rips the Pack as he does? Is Javon Walker so severely lacking in common sense that he really thinks other NFL teams would have handled him significantly differently than the Packers have over the course of their business relationship? I can't think of many teams that have ever readily just fallen over to a player's contract demands, especially when that player is still 2 years within the confines of an existing contract. Further, how many teams throw silly money at players when they're just coming off a serious injury? It seems to me that "sorry" 1 year deals like the one Ahman Green signed are more the norm -- until the player proves himself. Your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - Agree on all points.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Doc Weslow of University Heights - Hi Cliff: You have made it perfectly clear in previous chats that you hold no allegience to the Green Bay Packers. My question: Is this indifference pre-meditated, as something you have purposely aquired so that you can better do your job? Do you feel that you need this indifference to achieve complete objectivity, so that your product is not biased or partisan, or is your lack of emotional involvement in the team something that is unintended, and comes without effort or thought? Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - Tough question. Maybe a little bit of both. I think it's necessary in our business to detach oneself from the team that you're covering. At the same time, the Packers aren't paying my salary and I have nothing invested in them so why should I care how they do? I don't care how many hamburgers McDonald's sells.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tom Randall of Chicago - If the Packers signed Woodson and draft Hawk they could potentially win the NFC North based upon defense and Favre being hands down the best QB in the division. What side of the ball and position do you think they go with the important fifth pick in the second round?
A: Cliff Christl - I think you've wandered into fantasyland.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: J. Elder of Milwaukee of thee Wisconsin - Cliff, I know Mario Williams will probably wind up in New Orleans since they picked up Drew Brees in FA. The only way I see him slipping is if New Orleans decides to take Ferguson to protect Brees but then no way will the Jets let Williams pass when they can either take him for themselves or use their position as trade bait. I know last week you said that a team had to gamble on a player like Williams who can be a playmaker, but wouldn't they be better off with a defensive leader like A.J. Hawk who also have playmaking ability? When you look at the Bears with Urlacher, the Ravens with Lewis and the Pats with McGinest, I think you have a better shot building a defense around a star LB that can set the tone for the rest of the defense versus a playmaking DE. Reggie White, in my opinion, seemed to be the exception to the rule in his ability to dominate and lead from the line. From what I know of Williams, he may have talent just short of Reggie but he has none of Reggie's leadership qualities which the Packers desperately need.
A: Cliff Christl - Urlacher and Lewis are great middle linebackers. Hawk isn't in Urlacher's class as an athlete. But he may turn out to be that good. McGinest doesn't even belong in the conversation. The Patriots didn't build their defense around him. But back to defensive linemen, they're the second most valued players in the game behind quarterbacks. So most pro scouts and general managers would argue against you. And I'd point this out: Look at what Julius Peppers did for Carolina. How long did it take for the Bears and Ravens to start winning after they acquired Urlacher and Lewis?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Pinche Calderon of Santa Fe, NM - Hey Cliff, The opening page of the Packer Insider still has the picture of Mike Sherman. I don't have any bad feelings towards the former Packer's headcoach, but do you think it is about time for the Journal to replace Mr. Sherman's picture?
A: Cliff Christl - Let's see what happens if we post the question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Kim Gruetzmacher of Grafton - What was the biggest contributor to the "attitudes" taken by several of the top picks of the Packers in recent years. McKenzie and Walker hate the Packers, who's fault is that? And do you see this as a sign of the times or just some coddled players that think their stuff doesn't stink and they are the TEAM? Your thoughts and thanks for taking these questions. PS, Take Woodson.
A: Cliff Christl - I think every team has unhappy players just like every workplace has unhappy workers. What were some of the things Plaxico Burress said about the Pittsburgh Steelers a year or two ago?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ty of Milwaukee - Hey Cliff, Do you think Mark Taucher could move to guard if the Pack were to select D'Brickashaw Ferguson..? If he fell to them they would have a nice opportunity to pick up the #1 rated guard with their next pick and really bolster the o-line for years to come.
A: Cliff Christl - The better question would be: Could Ferguson or Chad Clifton play right tackle?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Devin of Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela - Hey Cliff, Thanks for the chat. I, along with many other Packer fans, read the comments by Walker's step dad with much interest and, even, a little amusement. He is very critical of the organization and, in some sense, seems to allude that something quite dire is happening up in Green Bay when he lets us know that the players are a fraternity and that "they talk to each other". Well, forgive me for saying this but, no S#$T Sherlock - of course they do. So what? I lived in Denver where it has been reported Shanahan has expressed interest in Walker. Doesn't his step dad and anyone else who is paying attention understand that there are guys screaming to leave lots of teams? Shanahan has had his fair share of disgruntled "employee" problems as well. I just think that anyone who reads that article and adds in the McKenize episode might come to the conclusion that the sky is falling if they don't take the proper holistic perspective. So this begs the question - do you think the organization is inherently flawed?
A: Cliff Christl - No. Just enduring some tough times. Let's face it. The Packers of today shouldn't be paid as much as the Packers of the mid-'90s, relatively speaking. They're not producing at that level. Thanks again for the many questions.
