Cliff Christl Tuesday Chat

[motife]

Q: Terry Huebner of Hinsdale, IL - Maybe I'm just exhibiting a low Wonderlic score, but I can't figure out why Javon Walker would hold the Packers responsible for Brett Favre's comments last year about his contract and aborted holdout. Obviously the Packers as the employer would agree with Favre's comments and would expect their players to abide by the contracts they sign. Besides, what are the Packers supposed to do about it? Criticize Favre for defending their position? Doesn't make sense. If Walker wants to be mad a Favre for speaking out, I guess that's his business, but I can't see what he's mad at the Packers for. They've gone out of their way not to say anything bad about him for more than a year. It must be frustrating to have to deal with morons like this. I wonder if this makes Vernon Davis a more likely pick, even though I've long believed that the Packers would pick Mario Williams or AJ Hawk if available. So am I missing something or what?

A: Cliff Christl - I don't care, either, if Walker hates Favre. He's free to do so. But his logic puzzles me as well. Let's face it, there are a lot of dumb players in the NFL. As for Davis, I can't imagine that the Packers would select him over Williams. But I don't think Williams stands any chance of being there at No. 5. Charley Casserly, the Texans' GM, says that Williams is the other player beside Bush that he's considering. I think that's because Williams is the No. 2 prospect in the draft.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ann of Amherst, NH - Hi, Cliff, Thanks for the year-round Packer fix with the chats. On trading Favre: shortly after I came to New England, the Bruins traded Ray Bourque, their best and most popular player, to the Colorado Avalanche to give him a chance to win a Stanley Cup, which he did two years later -- then promptly retired. The fans were incredibly supportive, as sorry as they were to see him go; they knew the Bruins had no chance, and they wanted Bourque to have that experience. I would be really sorry to see Favre in another uniform, but I would like to give him a more realistic chance to win a Super Bowl. I don't understand all the fans' anger directed at Favre; watching him play has been sheer joy for over a decade, and he owes us nothing else -- he has given the Packers more in his time there than many franchises have in a fan's entire lifetime. But I would certainly love more, and if it's true that McCarthy wants to bring back a "purer" version of the West Coast offense (whatever THAT is), then Favre shouldn't have much trouble picking it up. By now he probably knows almost all the plays known to football humankind anyway. Thanks again for all the chats.

A: Cliff Christl - But I wouldn't trade Favre to give him a shot at winning another Super Bowl. I'd trade him only because it makes sense if you're able to get enough for him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Lennie Durow of San Diego - Cliff: Although I love your chats but they should be shut down at least until mini camps or maybe have one after the draft. My god, can packer fans obsesse any more on wheather Favre is signing or that TT has done nothing in FA. Let's give it a rest! For my $3.95 a month, maybe JSOnline can have a few interviews weekely with current packers or ex-packers. Maybe we could see articles on the packer players cheritable works in the offseason. Anything but the reocuring dribble I see when I log on. Let's get creative here because I'm sure there is something more the talented staff of JSOnline can write on. Sorry for the rant.

A: Cliff Christl - I love a good rant. But would you really prefer lighthearted fare from our staffers rather than critical commentary and keeping up with the news?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tyler of Madison, WI - Cliff, at this point I'm starting to wonder if Favre's return would really be beneficial to the team. I know you've discussed it before, even if he returns they'll be lucky to be .500 this season. I'd almost rather see him retire and let the true rebuilding process begin now, since our chances of winning the Super Bowl are certainly slim to none anyway. Your thoughts?

A: Cliff Christl - As I've written before there are many advantages to hitting rock bottom. A team should be able to rebuild faster with earlier draft picks. On the flip side, the Packers are so short on talent at the moment that they might not even be competitive without Favre. At least last year, they played close games. Once things get really bad, there's more to restore than just the talent pool. The Packers fell into a tailspin in the 1970s and couldn't get out of it. For example, I think that's part of the problem in Detroit and Arizona. Those teams have been bad for so long, it's extremely difficult to reverse the cycle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave of Milwaukee - Do you really think trading Favre would be good for the Packers?

A: Cliff Christl - Dave, your question was in first. Most definitely. Their chances of winning another Super Bowl with Favre are pretty slim. And the fastest way to rebuild is to stockpile draft picks. The Dallas Cowboys built a dynasty off two horrendous seasons that gave them a favorable draft position and one trade, the Herschel Walker deal, that garnered a slew of draft picks.

[motife]

Q: Andrew of Los Angeles - Your recent column (that Favre should be traded) just doesn't make sense. Is that the way the packers should treat their icon - the player most responsible for their success in the last 13 years or so? I don't think so. If nothing else, out of respect, let him retire with class. I hope Thompson does not read your column so he will not get your silly and senseless idea.

A: Cliff Christl - The NFL is a business. There's no room for sentiment. The 49ers traded Joe Montana. The Packers put Paul Hornung in an expansion draft. The Cowboys let Emmitt Smith go. The 49ers let Jerry Rice go. The list could go on and on. If the Packers can get something for Favre to speed up the rebuilding process, they'd be stupid not to do it.

[motife]

Q: Jim Whitt of Cumberland Wi - do you think the packers are going to do anything about the offensive line whether the draft, or just live with what they have. or perhaps pick someone up on waivers after June 1st?

A: Cliff Christl - I'm assuming they'll draft a guard, but are they going to find anybody that has any more potential than Coston or Whitticker or White? They have a guard problem. No question. But I think they have other more pressing needs. All they need is a couple solid guards, not all-pros. Just two guys who won't screw up down after down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Brian of Athens, OH - Hi Cliff, a couple times during the past few months you have reflected on a gloomy period of the franchise’s history: the late 1980’s. The organization had really hit a low point under Gregg and Infante, and some national sportswriters were openly speculating that the Packers might never field a winning team again as long as the franchise remained located in Green Bay. My question: How seriously did you and your colleagues in the Journal sports department agree with such speculation back then? Back in the years 1986-88 when you and your sportswriter pals would have informal conversations about the team’s future, did you guys feel that the team would probably never seriously compete for a championship again?

A: Cliff Christl - As I recall, I had my doubts. I don't think I talked about it much with other writers. That's business, so most of us don't want to spend our free time talking about it. But the situation looked bleak. But it just goes to show what one player can do for a franchise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Robert of Escanaba - Hello Cliff-Read your column today and after a little reflection I like your option No 2 "Do whatever it takes to sign LaVar Arrington and Charles Woodson if Favre promises to play. Target offense in the draft, starting with tight end Vernon Davis with the fifth pick, and including a running back and a wide receiver as soon as one jumps off the board, preferably sooner than later. In effect, take one last run at winning another Super Bowl with Favre, if not this coming season maybe in 2007". I can appreciate TT desire to not make a mistake and build cautiously and conservatively but as a fan who pays to watch the games, I think it is more exciting to go into a season with tangible changes for the better in talent and hopes for a rejuvination of a championship attitude. The more talent and pro-bowl players you put together the more fun and the more chance there is of pulling something out of your hat. Davis has the intagables, Hawk fills a definite need, Williams is probably gone. What do you think of Vince Young???

A: Cliff Christl - But even with Arrington and Woodson, the odds against the Packers winning another Super Bowl probably would be something like 50 or 75-1. I don't think Woodson has been named to a Pro Bowl since 2001 and Arrington since 2003. So I wouldn't exactly call them Pro Bowl players at this point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Michael of Kelowna, BC, Canada - Cliff! There is just too much uncertainty going into this draft for the Packers. Having the 5th pick could be advantageous, but with so many holes, what should the Packers do? Draft Mario if available and waste the money on Kampman (or would KGB actually go to LB)? Go with AJ Hawk? Or perhaps address DB (Michael Huff) or a great TE (Vernon Davis - who I think would be a solid choice)? Or should they trade back to pick up more picks? What are your thoughts?

A: Cliff Christl - I think trading down would be a mistake unless it's just one or two spots for a nice haul of extra picks, including at least a No. 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: WW of Minnesota - Cliff, Would you consider it a lock now that Favre is coming back following the signing of Kicker Rhys Lloyd? Seriously, this kid has a big leg. You won't hear anyone whining about kickoffs with him. Whether or not he can hit 60% on FG's remains to be seen but he can boom them. How would you handicap the kicking field at this point.

A: Cliff Christl - Wouldn't that be fun if the Packers went with a kicker who sailed every kickoff over the end line, but couldn't bat 50% on field goals? Think it would shut up all the fans who grumbled about Longwell's kickoffs all these years. I would assume it would make them happy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Keith of Los Angeles - Love your curmudgeonly insights, keep 'em coming. What are the chances of both Favre and Walker being dealt on draft day for more picks as part of a true rebuilding effort that might also include picking Young at #5?

A: Cliff Christl - I think the chances are slim. But it would give the Packers the most hope for the future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bob Hurd of Warrensburg, MO. - As a long-time packer fan (early 60s), I know how ugly a team can look without a good QB, and like many fans had hoped to see Brett back this year. However, they have NO CHANCE of seriously competing for a Super Bowl, no matter how they draft. Time to rebuild. So long, Brett. Although anyone could use a LB like Hawk, Davis looks like the best impact player at #5. Rodgers will need all the help he can get, especially if Walker is gone.

A: Cliff Christl - What about a quarterback?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: RH of Texas - Cliff- Just read your article on trading Favre. All those are viable options of course, but your line about saying "the fans will turn on anyone" or words to that affect. The fans have been in Favre's corner under any and all circumstances. The team (Sherman especially) basically kissed up to the guy in every conceivable with probably good intentions but not good results. I have always liked your articles whether I agree with them or not, but whether you want to admit it or not and maybe not overtly, you have been a Favre apologist thik and thin. Back a few years ago we were playing Tampa Bay and Favre threw into quadruple or better coverage from the 6 yeard line and floated it to boot and it was picked off and taken 100 yards to the house. We lost. That play did it to us and absolutely 100% no question about it that play was on Favre and you spent two chats and naybe even an article explaining how that play was entirely on the Tight End. If 2 + 2 is 5, then it was on the TE. The fans haven't turned on Favre. Most just aren't as quick to accept this off season handling of the annual retirement talk as just normal business practices. To use Roger Clemons as the reason it's alright to act this way or Forrest Gregg, or Don Hutson is nonsense. If you are going to retire, retire. No question he has earned that and it's his choice. If your are goig to play for the Packers at 10 million a year, then say so and get with the program. For 10 million a year, I think its fair for the Packers to want him in Green Bay right now with the other 90% of the team and doing everything he can to be up to speed for the beginning of training camp. I also think it's pretty reasonable of the Packers to want their players to voice their concerns privately and not via reporters and ESPN, and lastly I don't think the Packers need his brother to go public and tell the press to tell the Packers they better get down to Mississippi to talk to Brett if they want him back. If you take the name Brett Favre out of this saga, it's a slam dunk that this isn't really the best possible way for a player to act. So not being thrilled with the off season antics doesn't make a fan appreciate less what Favre has accomplished and what he has meant to the Packers and the NFL. I don't think you revamp codes of conduct because of a guys storied past. So for the Packers to say "play or retire" isn't as sacreligious as you have made it out to be. It's the behavior and not the person that has left a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouth. Perhaps you should run it by Matt Millen and get his take on it as a GM before anyone who doesn't care for this off season soap opera gets lumped into the lunatic finge. And just for grins go back and watch that pick in the Tampa Bay game and see just how 100% incorrect you were in absolving Favre of the responsibility and then ask yourself if maybe you have been a little on the side of being a Brett Favre apologist.

A: Cliff Christl - I find it amusing that I'm often accussed of being a Favre apologist. I haven't talked to him more than two or three times in 14 years. Never had a personal conversation with him. After Favre took a fall so Mike Strahan could get the sack record, I wrote: "Brett Favre disgraced his sport -- cheapening as much as one could cheapen a spurious record -- and lowered himself to World Wrestling Federation depths in the waning moments of Sunday's National Football League game against the New York Giatnts." I challenge you to find anybody that has written anything as critical of Favre as that sentence. But I also believe he's basically the reason why the Packers have had one of the greatest runs in their history. Take him out of the equation and the Packers of the '90s wouldn't have been any better than the Packers of the 1980s. He made a lot of average players better. I remember a longtime scout telling me when Antonio Freeman was available after his big season in '98 that he was asked to look at film of Freeman to see if he was worth the money. The scout told his superiors that Freeman was no better than an ordinary receiver benefting from playing with a great quarterback. Favre played with a lot of players like that. Maybe you're blind to the obvious. What other conclusion could one draw if you haven't figured out from reading the various fan forums that a number of fans have turned on Favre over his delay in reaching a decision. And go watch the tape of that game again. You might learn something about how a receiver could shield a defender from a ball.

[motife]

Q: Rod Francis of Fremont, CA - Hi cliff - Just one thought. You mentioned to someone in your chat last week that Bill Walsh endorsed Jim Drukenmiller for the 49rs. Everything that I heard both then and now is that the oppisate was true and that Walsh, who was working as a consultant for the team at the time, was in favor of selecting Jake Plummer as a better fit for the offense. I certainly don't have 'inside information' but I did hear Bill Walsh cracking jokes about Drukenmiller on the radio after they had selected him. He was actually quite humerous. It seems, then, that this bust was on the 49ers brass and not Bill Walsh. I always enjoy your articles and chats.

A: Cliff Christl - I wrote that based on something I read years ago. And I couldn't find the article anymore. But if I'm wrong, I apologize.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Chris of Seattle (So Milw) - Cliff, in regards to your article "Dealing Farve might be best bet" In option 3 you are really giving TT the benefit of the doubt. I'm not sure he is another Ron Wolf and will be able to build a SB team, whether it's through the draft or free agency etc. Option three, means he must get a QB good enough to get them to a SB. Is that Aaron Rogers? We still don't know if Mike McCarthy can even coach. What we do know is Brett Farve can lead a team to a Super Bowl. Option number two is the only option, win now at all costs, because after Farve all you are doing is speeding up the inevetable, searching for another Farve.

A: Cliff Christl - It's a worthy argument. But I think it would be a real longshot. There's just not enough talent there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Big G of Marquette, Mi - Maybe I'm over simplyfying, but Green Bay can take a huge step in building a much improved defense in this draft. A player such as Hawk, Williams, of Huff along with FA Manuel over Roman, and perhaps a 2nd round Linebacker in a deep LB draft, and we could be strong there. Im not ready to give up on the offense and the new zone blocking scheme, its worked where ever it has been used. Let's not give up the ship before we've left the harbor! That being said, who will return punts and kickoffs this year?

A: Cliff Christl - As I've stated, I don't think Williams will be there and I think he's the one special prospect on defense in this draft. It's possible that the Packers could take a defender, I suppose: Ngata or Hawk or maybe Huff. But to be an outstanding defense, you need at least one or two really special players. Tampa Bay had two, maybe three when it won a Super Bowl. Baltimore had two or three. The Packers don't have any right now. Their best defenders last year might have been Aaron Kampman and Al Harris. And they probably don't rank in the top 15, 20, maybe even 25 players at their positions. So, no, the Packers won't have anything better than an average defense again next year even if they draft a defender No. 5. But that might be a good start.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jack Johnson of Venice, CA - Cliff: Never. Never. Never. Never. GIVE UP. –Winston Churchill Javon Walker and his relative have said they’ll never play in Green Bay again. Young players make mistakes. Favre did the same in calling him out. He’s extremely disappointed over blowing out the knee last year and seeing other WR get big money this year. Can't blame him. Can’t we tell him that “if he puts up “X” we’ll give him “Y”? Thompson, Favre, and Walker all admitting they made mistakes would go a long way. The guy seems like a good guy with a great work ethic and he’s going to be a star again. Ever had a fight with your wife? Ok. That’s personal. Forget I asked. But seriously. Get ‘em all in a room and work it out. It may be the equivalent of peace in the Middle East but it’s worth sitting down and talking over a case of wine.

A: Cliff Christl - The only thing that will talk is money and it would be foolish to give Walker a new contract until he plays and produces again for a full season.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Florio of Profootballtalk.com - CLiff, I dont know if your a fan of my website profootballtalk.com, but did you get a chance to see the threats your boy Chris Havel wrote me. It's classic material and posted at my site. I called him out on throwing Favre softball questions and he threaten to beat me up. Is that how business is run in the journalism industry in Green Bay?

A: Cliff Christl - I read them, but I have enough to worry about with my own job. So I don't have an opinion about it. But I won't threaten to beat you up. I think the last time I was in a real fight was when I wrestled a bear at the county fair in my late teens, early 20s. Besides, I have an artificial hip. So I can't move very fast and I can't fall.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tom Randall of Chicago - Cliff: Do you think that being a great salesman is part of being a great GM? I remember Wolf and Holmgren, “lured” Reggie White to Green Bay when it was almost a foregone conclusion that a player of his magnitude would never sign with a small market team like the Packers. I remember things like Mike Holmgren leaving a message on White’s answering machine saying, “Reggie, this is God. You should sign with the Packers.” I remember Wolf driving down the highway with Reggie and telling White how the only traffic he’d have to deal with in Green Bay would be the occasional farmer with a slow moving vehicle tag on his tractor. Wolf and Holmgren had the charisma, the “it” factor it takes to be a great salesman and a motivating management team. Could you please compare the Wolf/Holmgren team to the Thompson/McCarthy team based upon their ability as a salesman.

A: Cliff Christl - I think being a good saleman helps. Charisma can be important. My sense is that McCarthy has some; Thompson, very little. But to outsiders, at least, it doesn't appear that Bill Belichick and Joe Gibbs have much charisma. As for White, I think what sold him on Green Bay was the money, first and foremost, and the chance to play with Brett Favre and to win a Super Bowl. As I recall, he admitted the latter, not the former. But money always talks more than anything else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Asnewbol of The U - Ok Cliff your the new GM of the Green Bay packers your on the clock with the 5th pick in the draft and so far the draft has gone like this: 1.) Texans - Reggie Bush 2.) Saints- Mario Willaims 3.) Titans -Matt Lienart 4.) Jets - Brickshaw 5.) Packers - Who do you select and why?

A: Cliff Christl - Vince Young or Vernon Davis. But I'm not a scout and I haven't spent hours watching film of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Erbacaine of ESPN message board - I just read a report that the Texans are heavily considering taking Mario Williams with the first pick. If this happens do you see any way we trade up to 3 and get Reggie Bush? What would it take to move up that high?

A: Cliff Christl - I don't see the Texans passing on Bush. I don't see New Orleans passing on him if, by chance, the Texans do. I don't see the Packers getting Bush under any circumstances unless they're willing to give up their whole draft the way New Orleans did when it traded for Ricky Williams.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave of Redwood City - Cliff- Trade Favre? Ridiculous. Even if you look at it objectively, it's a crap shoot. Letting Molitor go in free agency certainly didn't work out well for the Brewers. Sure, the Packers may be able to pick up another draft choice or maybe two, but that's just like picking up another lottery ticket. As much as that pick could be a great one, it could also be the next Jamal Reynolds. Why take a flyer when the downside is trading away the best player in franchise history? Although the Packers are greater than Favre, it is watching Favre that is part of what has made the Packers great these past 15+ years. You say that there isn't room for sentimentality, but there is. Fan allegiance is part of the business in professional sports. You don't test that allegiance by trading the best player in franchise history for a lottery ticket.

A: Cliff Christl - You can be sentimental. Packer management can't afford to be. Yes, they might strike out on the draft pick, but the draft is the lifeblood of an an NFL franchise and the more picks the more likelihood that a team will hit the jackpot. As for Molitor, he had four good years left. You think Favre has four good years left?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: kwed of dubuque - Cliff, A few years ago I dreaded the day that Favre quits. Today, I can honestly say that for better or for worse, I am ready to see what we have in rodgers and "hope" for a bright future. While odds are against him ever being a star, I like the thought that "hope' will return to Green Bay when we move on at the quarterback position. With Favre, we have that lame duck feeling--not a good thing. Building for a brighter future is a basic human instinct and with brett announcing this is it, I think will change everything this year. I think Brett's well deserved apathy will breed apathy in the fans when the ship starts to sink during the year. We cannot make him "want it". We again need that hungry QB who will take on defenders, work hard on the off-season, and love the game. Brett is forever our hero, but it may be time to give us hope again. Your thoughts?

A: Cliff Christl - A lot of people in the late '60s were ready to see what the Packers had in Don Horn. At some point, the Packers have to move on and maybe now is a good time. But I think of what Ron Wolf has often told me: That Favre's critics don't have any clue as to how much the Packers will miss him. I know a lot of you don't believe this. But it could take 50 years or more to replace him. Just look at Chicago and Detroit and the struggles they've had at quarterback going back to the 1950s. They each had a capable qb or two -- Greg Landry in Detroit and Jim McMahon in Chicago -- but they've each gone 47 years or more without adequately replacing Sid Luckman and Bobby Layne. That's another reason why I don't think the Packers can dismiss drafting a quarterback this year even if Favre comes back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Stephen of Henderson - How much of a chance do you think there is of the Packers taking Vince Young if he's there at No. 5?

A: Cliff Christl - I don't know that anybody knows what Thompson will do. I think Young is a player that he has to consider. There'd be great risk there, but the upside could be tremendous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: JS of New Ulm - In your most recent column you wrote: "Thompson's future in Green Bay is on the line. So is McCarthy's. The future of the franchise might be at stake. Dawdle and it might be another 20-year wait before the Packers are winners again." Is catastrophizing part and parcel of sports journalism?

A: Cliff Christl - I would suggest you study your Packer history and maybe you'd rephrase your question. But that was a reference to the Packers' last two dry spells. After winning a championship in 1944, they endured a 14-year stretch where they were pretty much the pits of the NFL. After winning Super Bowl II following the 1967 season, they endured a 24-year period where they made the playoffs twice and won once. What do they say about people who are ignorant of history? Don't they tend to repeat their failures? So maybe you, Thompson and McCarthy should take heed of that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mike of Phoenix, AZ - Your article on trading Favre was, in my opinion, right on. However, I would place no floor on the draft choice the Packers would receive in return. If the only draft pick the Packers could get for Favre is a 4th, I would still do the deal. I just don't see any point in bringing him back again. Go with option 3.

A: Cliff Christl - Maybe your position makes more sense than mine. I'm not sure on that one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Spencer of Waterloo, ON Canada - In an earlier chat you referenced a scoring system for free agents; and provided the ratings for some of the current free agents available. What are the ratings for Charles Woodson and LaVar Arrington? Where do their ratings put them on the scale in relationship to elite players?

A: Cliff Christl - I've used Pro Football Weekly's pre-season ratings from before last season as a reference. They base their rankings on feedback from GMs, personnel people, etc. Before last season, PFW had Arrington ranked fourth at outside linebacker and Woodson ninth at cornerback. But I'm guessing they'll fall in next year's ratings, at least Woodson will almost for sure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Digger of Andover, MN - Hi Cliff, Doesn't your column about dealing Favre contradict your recent stance in this forum? Also, if you check, you'd see that I've made the exact same argument to deal Favre on 3 of the last 4 chats (all of which you ignored). Were you afraid that a card-carrying member of the lunatic fringe might steal your thunder?

A: Cliff Christl - No, it doesn't contradict anything I've written. And I wouldn't duck anyone's question. I never saw it. The list was too long. But get your facts straight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: cory cantlon of No St Paul MN - Hey you babbling fool, I can't believe people read your crap. You make yourself seem smart by picking on fans. That's not to tough. Fans are suppose to look at the glass as being half full. It would be boring otherwise. Thompson has started to right the ship, maybe Ahman G has one more 1800 Yd season left in him. Better start bashing me for my optimism.

A: Cliff Christl - Cory, you're free to think that way. But if that's how you feel what the heck do you read my stuff for? You a glutton for punishment?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tom Eddy of La Crosse - I saw the combine workout of Vernon Davis on the NFL channel. With 4.38 speed and soft, powerful hands that snatch balls, cat-quick, out of the air, why couldn't the Packers draft him as a tight end and also use him at wide reciever? He'd out-muscle the strong safties and out-race corners and free safeties. He could flat-out-dominate every offensive down. I just don't understand the statement I've read, "you don't use a number five pick on a tight end." Doesn't this remind you of the Barry Sanders draft, when he came out Oklahoma years ago; the year we took Mandrich? If we don't take Davis, five years from now, every Packer fan will be saying, "Can you believe we passed on that all-pro Davis?" Deja vu, all over again. Is there a down-side to picking Davis that I'm not seeing?

A: Cliff Christl - No, I don't see any downside. Where did you read that statement? There'd be some risk with Davis. There's risk with every player. But I agree. I think he really has intriguing talent and could be as dangerous a weapon as Antonio Gates, maybe more so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Sean Griffith of Myrtle Beach, SC - I am amongst the most loyal fans of the Green Bay Packers and Brett Favre and I would harbor no animosity towards either if Favre was traded. I would like Favre to have the opportunity to showcase the talent he still possesses and prove to all his detractors that he is still amongst the best QBs in the league. Also, I would love the Packers to have more options at their disposal to better position themselves for championship runs in the next 3 to 6 years. That all being said, I think with Favre at the helm and a draft pick of Vernon Davis, the Packers could make a run at the NFC North title this season because the division is so weak. Plus the Packers play the Saints and Eagles where the rest of the division are playing the better teams in those divisions. What makes any of the other NFC North teams that much better than a Favre-led, injury free Green Bay Packers in 2006?

A: Cliff Christl - The Bears have an outstanding defense. Cedric Benson could make a big difference this year. Grossman appeared to be coming into his own late last year. If he takes the next step, I think the Bears might have a shot at the Super Bowl. I think their defensive talent could be that good. I don't see the Vikings winning a Super Bowl with Brad Johnson. But they've signed so many free agents over the past two years that they should be one of the better teams in the NFC. The Saints have some talent and now they might have a quarterback. They were hit hard in free agency, but they had a lot better talent than most fans probably realized the last few years. They had a lot more good football players than the Packers. They were just saddled with Aaron Brooks. And Philadelphia could bounce back with a healthy McNabb. I think the Packers are just about bankrupt of talent. Without Favre, I think they would have been 1-15, 0-16 last year and probably been the worst team in the NFL.

[motife]

Q: Richard of Johnson City, TN - Thanks for taking my comment/question Cliff. I had thought you and I are in the minority, at least in writing, about the potential value of Vernon Davis (nobody has him ahead of Hawke) to the Packers. Recently he is getting more press putting him high on other team’s lists, not GB, so I did a bit of research into all 28 interceptions last year. In games with more than one interception 23 of the 25 interceptions were against cover 2 defensive teams - Chicago(6), Cincinnati(5), Detroit(3), Tampa(3), Minnesota(2), Cleveland(2) and Philadelphia(2). Teams are successful against cover 2 with a solid rushing game and/or a tight end that can get deep. GB’s running game was a mess last year, and none of their TEs could go deep, get open or catch the ball when they did. Only Gato had games (5) with 20 or more carries, and he did pretty darn well behind two makeshift guards and a herniated center. During those 5 games Favre’s interceptions even against top defenses in cover 2 were tolerable considering he had only one decent receiver – loss Pittsburgh(1), win at Atlanta(1), loss at Philadelphia(2), loss at Chicago(2) and win Detroit(1). Green Bay hasn’t had a deep threat at tight end for a decade and Favre has had his worst games against cover 2. Vernon Davis would be a great fit, and hopefully odds favor at least one of the three running backs (Gato, Green or Davenport) can stay healthy enough to provide a rushing threat to make the QB’s life easier against the cover 2. The question - Michael Hunt wrote an article on Madden’s comments about trading Favre, and the teams possibly interested would be Oakland, Baltimore and Minnesota. I can see Al Davis salivating at the thought of Favre and Moss together. What do you think the Packers could get from Oakland, Baltimore (forget the Vikes) or any other team as a draft pick(s) for Brett?

A: Cliff Christl - I found what you wrote to be interesting, so I'm sharing it with our readers. Thanks for all the questions. Good night.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Steve of Sheboygan - Could you just run down your feelings as to what the Packers needs are and how they can address them through the draft and the remaining free agents. Also, any word on A. Rodgers progress.

A: Cliff Christl - 1) A playmaker on offense: A running back, a wide receiver, a tight end. It doesn't matter. 2) A second playmaker on offense. 3) A quarterback and maybe I should move this up to No. 1. 4) A pass rusher. 5) A cornerback. Secondary needs, in no particular order, are depth at wide receiver, guards, a defensive tackle, linebackers, more corners, a kicker, a punter and a return specialist. That's a long list, but the cupboard is bare. Good question by the way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tim of Huntsville, Alabama - Cliff, first time to post but I read your work religiously--keep up the excellent work and thank you for the outstanding insight and logic. Question & comment on the draft: Fans can talk all they want about Hawk, etc. but I am convinced that with the #5 pick we need to take a chance on a freak talent: Vince Young. I doubt Williams will be available and just don't like the upside and potential impact of anyone else that may be available in the 5 slot. It may turn out to be a bust, but your thoughts and insight?

A: Cliff Christl - I agree. And often the bigger the risk, the bigger the reward. Hawk would be a safer pick, but I question how much upside is there. I think Davis would offer more of that. Maybe even Ngata. But I think most, if not all, people in the NFL subscribe to the approach that you more or less spelled out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: MARK of WAUKESHA - (Not a Packer question, but absolutely nothing has happened with the Packers this past week.) You and Kramer from Seinfield are the only two Americans I have ever heard express any interest in the Canadian Football Leage. (And Kramer is not a real person.) In fact most of my business associates from Quebec follow an American NFL Team. Not sure if your interest in the CFL makes you a real football geek or just rather a odd guy. Can you tell me if it is true that the reason they only have three downs is to shorten the game so that the Canadians have more time to watch hockey?

A: Cliff Christl - I like high school football, too. I'm interested in the game. I feel no attachment to players or teams.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Pete of Albuquerque - Cliff: Honestly, what do you think about Thompson's claim that they don't need to do individual visits with potential draft targets because they've seen all they need to see from the scout camps? There are hundreds of players out there to choose from! And most, if not all, other teams seem to be hosting dozens of players. When you add this to TT's nonchalant attitude towards the Packers QB situation and free agency, don't you find it hard to keep trusting that his 'conservative' approach to building the team isn't just plain apathy?

A: Cliff Christl - I don't think it's a big deal or even matters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: darrin of longmont, CO - Cliff, The flavor-of-the-week buzz in Packerland concerning Favre seems to be "trade him." After reading your latest article and listening to other pundits around the league promoting/predicting a Favre trade, I'm left to wonder: What team in their right mind would trade for a 37-year-old QB coming off a 29-interception debacle of a season? By his own admission, Favre has indicated that "if" he came back, it would only be for one more year --- "no doubt about it." Given these dynamics, would an NFL team really be naive enough to mortgage their future for a John Hadl-esque transaction?

A: Cliff Christl - I wrote that no team is going to give up a Herschel Walker (or, in effect, a John Hadl) package for Favre. All I'm talking about is giving up a second-round pick to have a shot at winning a Super Bowl. Obviously, Favre would be better than Bledsoe and Brunell and maybe Simms, and their teams all might be good enough to have a shot. There probably are some scouts who think Favre is slipping and wouldn't make the deal. But I think most would still rank him somewhere among the top 10 qbs. Yes, the 29 picks look horrendous on paper. But scouts are smart enough to know that he played with no running game, one decent receiver and still kept the Packers competitive most of the time. For example, scouts still rate Peyton Manning the best or maybe second-best qb in the game even though he's had bad playoff games and thrown way too many interceptions when he was playing from behind and without the threat of the run. So, yes, I think Favre has some market value. If he doesn't, it would be because of his salary more than anything.

[b bulldog]

All the Hawk fans must be on this site