Cliff Christl : Thursday Chat Milw Journal
Q: Brian of Racine - Cliff, what are you going to do with all your free time on Sundays this fall since the Packers will be pathetically unwatchable?
A: Cliff Christl - Brian, you win this week's jackpot. Your question is in first. I like the schedule. Mostly noon kickoffs makes for an easier week for newspapermen. Plus, I won't find the Packers unwatchable. I don't care if they lose 30-0 every week anymore than I care if they win 30-0 every week. I'm there to cover a story. Don't forget those '70s and '80s Packers made for some great copy. Steve Broussard getting three punts blocked in one game. Malcolm Snider being run over for two safeties in one game. Buddy Aydelette sailing punt snaps all over Three Rivers Stadium. How do you beat days like that if you're looking for a good story?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Nik of Eden Prairie - Thanks for taking this question, Mr. Christl. Could you give me a reason that Arrington and Woodson's visits will end up any different than Vinatieri's? These guys will be even more expensive, and I'm not so convinced that Thompson is genuinely interested. Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - You might be right. But obviously Arrington and Woodson have set market prices that no team is interested paying at this point. No matter how much cap room the Packers have at the moment, you don't want to pay millions over what someone's worth. If you determined a car was worth $10,000 would you pay $12,000 for it? You get it yet that the NFL is a business and that's real money we're talking about; that it's not like fantasy football?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Rick of Town of Oconto - I'm as guilty as the next guy when it comes to obsessing about whether or not Brett will play again, but the two sanest things I've heard on the topic have come from Brett himself ("I know people are getting impatient, but enjoy baseball right now. It just started up. Enjoy it, and it'll work itself out ...There is life aside from whatever my decision and the off-season brings") and from you ("If the topic has become tiresome, it's only because of the constant flow of opinions from people whose opinions don't matter"). Time we all got a life and let Brett make this intensely personal decision in his own time. And speaking of Jimmy Buffett, wouldn't Rag Top Day be a fine road song?
A: Cliff Christl - You sound pretty sensible. It's probably because of those Oconto County roots. I agree. Retirement is every bit as personal a decision as marriage, divorce, choosing a career, starting a family, etc. Now, I understand that when Favre talks about it, he often does so in the context of football. And that creates a gray area. But it's still a personal decision. I've read letters and stories in recent days where people have said they're frustrated with Favre, they've lost patience with him, they're fed with his indecisiveness. Who do these people think they are? Do they want to run everybody's life?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Eric of Germantown - Maybe the Favre decision isnt the biggest issue in the world today, but wouldnt you agree that Favre's stance that he is going to wait and see what the Packers are going to in free agency is a little contradictory. Isnt it possible that his decision to stay might help land the big name free agents he's looking for the Packers to sign? I mean Favre spoke of the Reggie White signing, yet the main reason White said the Packers were attractive, (besides the money) was the presence of Favre. I'd also like to predict that we'll know a lot more about TT depending on how he uses that #5 pick. If he decides to go the safe route with Hawk or another player over a potential franchise player in Vince Young or Vernon Davis the Packers will be doomed to mediocracy.
A: Cliff Christl - No, I don't find it a contradiction. If he doesn't want to play unless the team looks better on paper, it would be foolish of him to make a commitment until that happens. Should he be deceitful? Tell evrybody he's coming back and then change his mind if the additions don't meet expectations? It's not hurting the Packers. For example, if Arrington doesn't want to play in Green Bay unless Favre plays, then he's certainly not going to sign if Favre announces his retirement. As for the fifth pick, I think the Packers should take a shot at a player with a huge upside. Maybe some of you have interpreted what I've written in past chats about Hawk to mean that he doesn't fall in that category. That's not what I meant. I think he'll probably be one heck of a player. I just think there's more reason to question whether he has as high a ceiling as say Davis or Young. But I don't think I'd condemn Thompson for taking Hawk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Niko Jurich of South Windsor,Ct - What do you think the Packers should do about the interior offensive line? Should they try to sign Jeff Faine or another free agent?
A: Cliff Christl - I wouldn't rule out any free agent or claiming anybody on waivers. It never hurts to look. Jeff Faine? I think The Sporting News' scouting service -- and I think they have people with football backgrounds compiling their ratings -- had Faine rated the 31st best center before last season. And it's my understanding that he didn't have a particularly good year last year. So would he be any better than Scott Wells? Probably not. I know a lot of people hear the name Jeff Faine and go, 'I know that name. He was a former No. 1 draft pick. He'd be a great addition.' Well, just because he was a No. 1 pick doesn't mean he's a player. One of the keys for every team is developing their own players. And that would be the best way for the Packers to get better in the interior of the line if they're not going to sign a Hutchinson: To try and develop Whitticker, Coston, Wells, White, Barry, the list goes on. Sure, there's risk. Sure, it might take another year or two or three. But the reward usually is greater than signing some journeyman even if he was a No. 1 pick.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Patrick Meyer of De Pere - Considering your statement, which I happen to agree with, that without Favre the Packers have no elite players, do you think it makes more sense to take a player like Vernon Davis or Michael Huff due to their relatively higher upside and chance of becoming an elite player as opposed to an A.J. Hawk who seems to have maximized his talent?
A: Cliff Christl - That's something the Packers probably are weighing as we speak. Or at least something they've discussed to no end already. I've seen some great 40 times for Hawk and he has been a highly productive player. So I don't think anybody can say that he doesn't have an upside and maybe even a big upside. But the Packers have to weigh whether he'd be an every-down player for them. And they have to weigh if he has as much of an upside as Young or Davis or maybe Huff. It's a great question. I'll say this that if anybody went back and studied the history of the draft, they'd find that teams in the top five or 10 almost always are going to take the best athletes. So if Young and Davis are better athletes than Hawk and have been comparably productive, one of them is more likely to be the Packers' pick. At least that's what my experience, covering the draft for 30 some years, tells me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Sheetu Jain of nashville, TN - Speaking of Hockey Jersey's, I Hockey has all around the best uniforms. You've got a lot of classic uniforms like the Mapleleafs, the Blues, the Redwings, the blackhawks, the Bruins, the penguins. Best jerseys by sport: Hockey - Bruins w/ the B; Baseball - Yankees pinstripes; Basketball - new Sixers jerseys in white; Football - Raiders. While we're at it, college football: USC/Notre Dame; too close to call.
A: Cliff Christl - That's a good list. I happen to think the Canadiens are the best in sports, but you're entitled to your own tastes. Isn't that what makes the world go round?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John Gehring of Saint Paul - I really enjoyed your "Saturation of Meaningless Opinions" article. On the one hand, I love being able to get my fill of NFL news virtually 365 days a year. On the other, all the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments around the Favre retirement issue drives me nuts, and I don't even have cable! What did you do in the off-season before writing about football became a viable year-round activity? Did you report on other sports, or other topics entirely?
A: Cliff Christl - The beat wasn't the 24/7/365 job it is now. And I didn't mean to suggest that reporters 10 or 15 or 25 years ago wouldn't have pursued the Favre story just as aggressively. You want the scoop; you don't want to overlook news. You might still call five or 10 people on a given day, but you were less inclined to write a story. If there weren't any new major developments, you simply wrote off your effort. Now, the expectation is that you write something even if there is nothing really to write. That's one of my biggest beefs with newspapers. I think that's why we're killing ourselves. We fill too many news holes with drivel, more so on the sports pages than anywhere. We're back to being the toy department. But I don't have a quarrel with any reporter aggressively pursuing this story. I give them credit. My beef is strictly with the endless, mindless babble we get from columnists, talk show hosts, etc., who want to make a mountain out of every molehill, want to intrude on people's personal decisions, and have an opinion about eveything. How can anyone have an opinion about what someone else should do as far as retirement or what time table someone should follow to reach that decision? Those are topics for shallow people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff of Tuolumne Meadows - What grade would you give Ted Thompsom for the player acquisitions he has made thus far? What are the three greatest areas of need in your estimation that the packers have heading into this draft?
A: Cliff Christl - It would be hard to grade Thompson at this point. I'm impressed that he has a philosophy and he's adhering to it. I think he made a major mistake when he didn't find a way to keep Mike Wahle. And I say that with the advantage of hindsight. When Wahle left, considering his contract, I didn't quarrel with not paying him. I thought probably the same thing Thompson did. Who needs to overpay a guard? They're not worth it. What I didn't realize was that the Packers couldn't afford to take another hit to their infrastructure; that they couldn't afford to lose another good football player, regardless of position. I think Thompson had a pretty good draft last year except that he might have missed on his No. 1 pick. It's way too early to say that. But if he did, he wouldn't deserve even a C. That was his most important personnel decision so far.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff of Tuolumne Meadows - If you had a chance to sit down and interview Brett what are some of the questions you would be asking him?
A: Cliff Christl - Have you made a decision? And if he answered, yes, I'd follow by asking: What is it? At this point, there's no need to ask anything else. If the answer to the first questiuon was no, I'd save my breath and walk away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Rich of Dayton, Ohio - Cliff: Have you heard how Rodgers is progressing in McCarty's quarterback school? If Favre retires, what free agent QBs are out there to potentially back-up Rodgers?
A: Cliff Christl - No, but it doesn't matter what he does in quarterback school. What'll matter is what he does on the field when he gets a chance to play. What's left as far as quarterbacks. I think Kerry Collins is still out there. Anthony Wright. Jay Fiedler. Jeff Blake. In other words, garbage. If Favre doesn't sign and Rodgers isn't ready, the season will be a total disaster. It might be anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Rich of Dayton, Ohio - Cliff: In years past, June 1st or 2nd was a date that some decent vets were cut loose for salary cap reasons (I seem to think Eugene Robinson fell into that category). With the higher salary cap, is it likely that some talent will still become available after June 1? I would not look for any difference makers to become available, but it could be an opportunity to add some depth or upgrade one or two areas on the team.
A: Cliff Christl - There might not be as much to choose from and there certainly won't be any special players. There were hardly any in the first round of free agency. But there'll be players worth signing. There always are. But the Packers of today aren't in position to benefit from signing a Eugene Robinson. Robinson was over-the-hill, but playing on a defense with Reggie White and next to LeRoy Butler gave him kind of a second wind and allowed him to be a functional player for one more year. Had some team signed Robinson that didn't have any defensive talent and wasn't going anywhere, he probably would have been as much a liability as he had been at the end in Seattle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jim Egan of Arlington Tx - Just got back from the hospital from seeing the next really great Packetr QB, my new grandson!! *lbs and really big hands!! Seriously. I think it's funny to follow the Favre saga at this point. I mtend to agree it is his decision and he has the right to make it on his schedule. He's given us plenty to smile about in the last 14 years. I take issue though to fans and some in the media who insist that he does in fact retire, we need to take a QB with the fifth pick. Wouldn't we be better off to see about the Rodgrs kid in 06 and then if he's as bad as some forcast, be in line for a shot at a Brady Quinn type in next years draft. In the mean time we would surely be adding a building block for the future at this years #5 ?
A: Cliff Christl - Congratulations. There's nothing better than grandchildren. And if you don't realize that already, I guarantee you soon will. And what if Rodgers is another Joey Harrington? The Packers aren't going anywhere without a franchise quarterback. There's no guarantee that they'll get a shot at Quinn next year or that he'll be better than Young or Cutler or Leinart. Don't forget, it took the Packers 24 years to find a worthy successor to Bart Starr. And they really started the search about five years before Starr started going downhill. It has been 56 years and the Bears are still trying to replace Sid Luckman, although they won two championships since with two of the greatest defenses ever. The Lions will be entering their 48th season in search of a worthy successor to Bobby Layne and they haven't done squat in the meantime. You want to wait that long? You still want to pass on a quarteback who might have the potential to win a Super Bowl in order to spend a year trying to learn about Aaron Rodgers? Heck, if the Packers draft Young and Rodgers blossoms, they might be able to swing a trade that will dramatically accelerate their rebuilding process.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: BDubs of The Woodlands, TX - Call me crazy, but I am excited about 2006. New coach and staff, good core players when healthy, and a good opportunity in the draft. The o-line and linebackers are suspect but could get better with coaching, draft and Arrington. Brett's retirement could sink my theory. Is the Texas heat effecting my brain??
A: Cliff Christl - Yes, I'll call you crazy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Doug of Delray Beach - Cliff, how do you like the idea of the Packers drafting the player with the biggest upside, Vince Young, whether Brett decides to go or not. With his athletic talent, there would have to be ways to use Young's running skill, similar to what the Steelers did with Slash?
A: Cliff Christl - I don't think Favre should be a consideration in their draft plans, either way. But Young better be twice the quarterback that Kordell Stewart was or it would be one of the biggest draft blunders in the Packers' history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Terry of Chicago - Cliff, Seems all the Pack needs to do to secure Favre for another year is ink either Woodson or Arrington. Arrington makes more sense b/c of his playmaking ability, age and their LB need. Why not do it? You have a lot of cap money, will gain more when Favre quits next year and the Defense has no identity or playmakers. Sure they will over pay, but that is what you have to do to lure elite players - particularly African American ones - to small town, predominantly white Green Bay.
A: Cliff Christl - Is Arrington still an elite player? I know some people think Joe Gibbs erred in not getting him on the field more and that when Arrington played, he played well. But there aren't many better coaches than Gibbs. I think Arrington is worth pursuing. I wouldn't throw ridiculous money at him. My guess is that his best years are behind him or will be by the end of next season.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: tim of orange - With the bad performance of the guards last year, what has TT done to improve those two positions? Throw in the leaving of Flanigan and that is a major problem. How is GB going to improve those positions - from within or draft? Do you blame Farve for not coming back? - no one to block or throw to.
A: Cliff Christl - I understand why Favre is reluctant to come back for the reasons you pointed out. No receivers, no interior linemen, no sure thing at running back. It's still looks like an NFL Europe roster even without the quintessential NFL Europe or Arena League player, Antonio Chatman. But it figures to be a lot easier finding guards than a big-play receiver or a special running back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John of Sebring, Florida - WOW, you nailed right on the head Cliff with your article on who's opinion really matters. I have been a packer fan since Vince left NYG to come to GB. I remember all those "Retirement" issues. You are absolutely correct. It is up to Farve, and if Thompson can't make decisions without knowing if Farve will be there or not, maybe we have the wrong general manager. For all that happens, Farve could come back and be hurt in the first series, then what? Don't laugh, it could happen with the "o" line or the 0 (zero)-line. Thanks for the chats, I sometimes take issue with your candid approach, but you have a firm grip on reality. Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - You're right. I see no reason why the Packers have to have an answer from Favre before July. And he was right. If they don't want to wait, cut him. But they aren't going to do that because Thompson and McCarthy are doomed if Favre retires and they don't find another stud quarterback and soon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: jerry korb of las vegas - I again ask what are the packers doing in the field position game where they are in drastic need of help without longwell? I think this is 20 % of the game and Greenbay gives it 5% effort. Remember HowARDS EFFORT on the super bowl team.
A: Cliff Christl - You're right. Their special teams haven't given them any help for several years, certainly very few big plays. But remember where Longwell came from? He was claimed on waivers, cut by a team even before training camp? So you never know where you'll find kickers or players.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Geoff of NYC - Cliff, clearly the Packers are in a rebuilding state, so isn't it in the best interest of the team for Favre to retire and see if Rodgers can play? If the Pack had a realistic shot at the Super Bowl I would love for Brett to return, but they don't so why wait another year to let Rodgers start building some chemistry with rest of the offense? Thanks
A: Cliff Christl - Good question and you can make that argument. I think it's an advantage when a team is rebuilding to bottom out and go through two, three, four dreadful seasons. But before you start worrying about Rodgers building chemistry with the offense, you better worry first if he's even good enough to play. And my guess is that even if he is good enough, he'll still experience at least two tough seasons, maybe even absolutely horrendous seasons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike of In the Florida Keys - Cliff, I just wanted to tell you that was an excellent column on all of the opinions surrounding Favre's future.
A: Cliff Christl - Thanks, but I'd rather be in the Keys.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Idaho Cheese of Jerome, Idaho - It could be said that the Patriots are one of the best if not the best managed teams in the NFL. The just gave Seymour an extention to his contract something the Packers should do with Walker. But people have said it would be bad business to redo(extend) his contract because then everyone would try to hold the team ransom after one good season. If Walker is a very good reciever, wouldn't it be easier to do what the Patriots did with Seymour and rework the contract rather than going out and fining another reciever?
A: Cliff Christl - First of all, Walker doesn't want to play in Green Bay. Seymour wanted to stay in New England. I hope you can determine there's a mighty big difference there. Two, Walker was a Pro Bowl receiver in '04, but that was his breakout season. And he still wasn't a top 10 receiver. Pro Football Weekly in its survey of GMs, etc. had him rated No. 12 at the start of last season. Seymour has been one of the premier defensive linemen for what? Three, four years. He might be the best all-around defensive lineman in the game. So do you see the difference there? Last but not least, Walker is coming off an ACL that knocked him out for virtually all of last season. Seymour had some injury problems last year and missed four games, but he has been a durable performer. So do you see the difference there? You're basically talking apples and oranges: An elite player as opposed to a very good player and very good only if he's healthy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Trevor of Kenora - Hello Cliff-thanks as always for the chats. You have pointed out that teams should not pass on a franchise quarterback in the draft. My question is this: what criteria would you use for evaluating a collegiate quarterback? I know this is not your area of expertise, but you have covered the league for a long time and talked to a lot of people in personnel. For example, does it matter where the prospect played in college (I'm thinking of quality of the conference)? How important is the offence he was asked to run? How important is it that he stayed all four years? (Roethlisberger left early, I think, but so did Ryan Leaf.) Arm strength, etc., etc. Which things do you think should be looked at most carefully by a franchise? Thank you and Happy Easter!
A: Cliff Christl - Arm strength is absolutely essential. Accuracy is essential. Play-making ability. Touch. Mobility. Football smarts. Of the top three quarterbacks this year, Young is the only one you have to worry about because of the system that he played in in college. He didn't play under center. To me, that's cause for serious concern. But really it comes down to gut feel. The Colts agonized over the choice of Manning or Leaf. Bill Walsh, the offensive genius, and I use that word out of respect, thought Jim Druckenmiller was going to be an outstanding quarterback in the NFL. Clearly, Walsh was wrong. Again, there are no sure things in the draft. At No. 5, the history of the draft tells us the Packers have less than a 50-50 chance of landing a Pro Bowl player. Only 47% of No. 5 picks over the 38 common drafts have become Pro Bowl players to this point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jon Erkkila of Apple Valley, MN - Rhys Lloyd was a good sign for the Packers. He was a really reliable kicker in Minnesota. He was just as good on the road as in the Metrodome...I know a lot of college greats flame out in the pros, but I think this guy has a real good leg. My question is how much do players special teams abilities play into the selection of players in the last few rounds of the draft? Thank you Cliff!
A: Cliff Christl - Intersting comments about the kicker. As for your last question, it's often an important consideration. Obviously not with offensive linemen. But teams are always looking for special teams demons and return specialists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tom Schultz of Wauwatosa - Despite the team's reluctance to use the "R" word, the Packers are rebuilding, arent' they?
A: Cliff Christl - No question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Zac of Atlanta, GA - Do we have any useful tradebait?
A: Cliff Christl - Maybe Favre. Their tackles, Driver, Collins, Kampman, KGB, and some others all have value. But are you going to trade them any of those players? If you're asking me do they have anybody who is expendable and worth anything, the answer is no other than their draft picks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Rocki of Woodland Hills, CA. - I think it stinks that I can post a question on the Packer Insider, but have to pay a fee to see your answer on-line. It seems the Journal Sentinel is trying to hold Packer fans hostage to make a buck. Further, the RANTS AND RAVE (the section that asks for audio responses from Packer fans, and posts them on-line) should be asking Questions ALL YEAR LONG ... about the Packers, their management, Free Agent Acquisitions, Coaches, Draft Choices, etc., so we can ALL hear Packer Fans comments. What's up on both points?
A: Cliff Christl - Don't know. I'm just a peon. But I thought that's what companies were in business for: To make a buck. Do you work for a business? Does it charge for its services? Or does it just open the doors and give away its products?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Brett of Kiln - Cliff, You know a guy like me still wants to play, but at 36, I need to be on a team with a chance to go all the way to the Super Bowl. Could you name three teams that I could be traded to now that need a quarterback and have a chance to win?
A: Cliff Christl - Off the top of my head? How about Tampa Bay, Dallas and Washington?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jack of Michigan City - Cliff, Are the Packers the worst team in football? I would say not even close because a team is far more than just the players. I really think Green Bay has an outstanding organization with good football people at the top. I think Thompson gets an unfair shake because he has had a hand in helping build two excellent football teams (Green Bay in the 90s and Seattle now)and I trust him as our GM. I think we have outstanding facilities and a great fan base as well as the richest tradition in football history. Not to mention great reporters. Thats a pretty good place to start when putting a team in place. Yes we are missing a couple of cornerstone players and maybe we can get one in this draft but we do have some good young players with potential and an enthusiastic young staff to teach them. If the staff turns out to be good, I don't think we are that far from being good. There are teams out there with far less to build on and a history of ineptitude(Arizona, Detroit,New Orleans,) so they would get the "worst team" label in my opinion.
A: Cliff Christl - Both Arizona and New Orleans have better talent. Detroit probably does too if you remove Favre from the equation. You sound like Mr. Rogers. Do you view everything through those same rose-colored glasses? If so, I guess my hat's off to you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John of Milwaukee - Hi Cliff, thanks for taking my question. Cliff, I see the Packers around 5-11, maybe 6-10, should Brett Favre return and they escape major injury this season. My qustion is this. Suppose the Packers pick up Arrington or Woodson, or both. Do you see any more victories this next season solely based on these two new players?
A: Cliff Christl - I picked 6-10 when the schedule came out. If they signed both Arrington and Woodson, I'd maybe change it to 7-9. But if they signed both players and also added some offensive explosiveness in the draft, maybe Davis with No. 5 and a running back in the second round, I might jump them up to 8-8.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Pete of Albuquerque - Cliff: The Packers QB situation is mystifying to me. They have only one guaranteed QB right now and Brett's return seems uncertain at best. Is this an indication of their confidence in Rodgers? Are they thinking a QB in the draft if Brett doesn't return? Or are they just gambling everything on the hope that Brett comes back?
A: Cliff Christl - I think they have their fingers crossed that Favre will come back. Then again, why rush to sign a veteran like Kerry Collins or any of the rest? That would be liking picking through the trash and trying to decide if you want the coffee grounds or the fish heads.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: C.J. of Half Moon Bay, CA - Cliff, I believe that you are on the Hall of Fame selection committee for the NFL. Do you consider Tom Brady to be a Hall of Famer right now? And if he isn't yet, what does he have to do to get in? Thanks!
A: Cliff Christl - If he quit tomorrow, I'd vote for him in five years. One of the best qbs of all time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: eric of minocqua - What do you think about packaging walker and kgb to the saints for their 1st round pick? This would allow us to maybe pick up 2 potential playmakers ( Williams, Davis,Young or Fergusan).
A: Cliff Christl - The Saints are going to trade the second pick in the draft for Walker and KGB. Get serious. That's almost like asking somebody in the NBA: Do you think the Cavaliers would trade us LeBron James for two of our John Does?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John of Indy - Any chance Thompson trades up to #1 or 2?
A: Cliff Christl - What are some of you smoking tonight? Do you think the Texans or Saints are going to give up the No. 1 or 2 pick for the No. 5 and a Grady Jackson sized jock? What in the world do the Packers have to offer with that fifth pick to move up? I suppose they could put together a Ricky Williams type package? What did the Saints give up to draft Williams? Two firsts, two thirds and what else? It was like the entire rest of their draft. That was an unusual trade, but that's how teams value those top picks. I suppose the Packers could give up their No. 5 and next year's No. 1 and maybe this year's No. 3 for the second pick and the Saints might bite. But would it be worth it? Maybe. I couldn't imagine the Texans trading the No. 1 pick even if the Packers offered all their choices this year and any three veterans on their roster. Thanks for all the questions. Your interest and response has been phenomenal. Every chat draws hundreds and hundreds of questions. It's appreciated. Good night.
