Cliff Christl, thoughts on the game

[Patler]

cory bradford, charles rodgers, david boston, todd pinkston, david terrell, peter warrick, rod gardner

all guys that have been in the nfl for more then 2 months. all have caught td passes and have gotten around 500 yards or more in a few season, all have already adjusted to nfl speed, all understand an nfl playbook better the a street free agent rookie

I know you don't mean specifically just these guys, but your list has some players best left alone.

I think MJZ explained why Pinkston isn't highly regarded.
Cory Bradford, from what I hear, can't run anymore.
Boston hasn't played in years and apparently is a steroid freak.
Rod Gardner had a chance and gave nothing in TC. Ruvell Martin looked better than him day in and day out from all reports.
Charles Rodgers in 3 years at Detroit had a TOTAL of 36 receptions for 440 yards and was a continual attitude problem.

The one thing I think TT is trying to do is develop a certain attitude on the team. Guys who love playing and want to be football players. Yes, guys who are tough for their positions. That's why Hawkins is gone, and Pinkston "need not apply".

The story on Gardner this fall was that he couldn't get into the playbook. I suspect problems like that occur with a lot of talented players who are on the street. A less talented player who "gets it" might be able to contribute more than the highly athletic prima donna.

They raved about Ruvell Martin's hands and attitude in preseason. They might as well give him a chance. He has actually been in the league a year, but did not play, so he is not a complete neophyte to what is needed.

I posted a list a few days ago of all recent WR roster transactions. Most are "no-names" while the Charles Rodgers and David Bostons remain available. There must be a reason that GM after GM passes on these guys.

[Joemailman]

At this point in the season, you're either gonna sign a has-been, or you're gonna sign a could-be. TT has chosen to go with the could-be. I don't know the first thing about this guy TT signed, but it's better than signing Charles Rodgers or David Boston. By the way, the could-be's did pretty good on Sunday.

[Rastak]

Red and Ras,

I know I sometimes come on a little strong, but I don't mean any offense to you guys. I respect your knowledge and perspectives here.

And no, "TT" hasn't been 100% correct. My point is that I'm inclined to trust the judgement of those guys like Ted Thompson, Reggie McKenzie, John Dorsey and the entire scounting and personnel staff before a couple fans, regardless of how knowledgeable I know you are. These guys know what they're doing. I'm going to let them do their job and see the guy on the field before I attack their decision.

Yea, I hear ya Vince but if you have that much confidence and everyone on the board doesn't have enough knowledge to question moves this board isn't really needed is it? The Packers (and Vikes and every other team) make mistakes and sometimes us regular joes see it and are right.


Have the Packers made any moves in the last two years you've disagreed with?

[vince]

Red and Ras,

I know I sometimes come on a little strong, but I don't mean any offense to you guys. I respect your knowledge and perspectives here.

And no, "TT" hasn't been 100% correct. My point is that I'm inclined to trust the judgement of those guys like Ted Thompson, Reggie McKenzie, John Dorsey and the entire scounting and personnel staff before a couple fans, regardless of how knowledgeable I know you are. These guys know what they're doing. I'm going to let them do their job and see the guy on the field before I attack their decision.

Yea, I hear ya Vince but if you have that much confidence and everyone on the board doesn't have enough knowledge to question moves this board isn't really needed is it? The Packers (and Vikes and every other team) make mistakes and sometimes us regular joes see it and are right.


Have the Packers made any moves in the last two years you've disagreed with?

Wahle was a mistake, IMO. That's the big one, and probably the only notable one in my opinion. He's as good as anyone, but it would have been a challenge getting a deal done, but in retrospect, he should still be a Packer.

The Walker situation was unfortunate, but I am wholeheartedly in support of the way that was handled. I originally thought we should have left him rot, but changed my tune after looking at it realistically. Unfortunately, sticking to your guns makes you feel good, but in the end, that doesn't serve the franchise to just let him walk for nothing...

Manuel is looking to be a step slow out there, but Underwood would have beat him out by now if he would have stayed healthy this year.

Every GM is going to make some mistakes in evaluating talent and/or encounter players that don't fit the culture for any number of reasons.

In my opinion, Thompson's approach is generally the right way to go about it, and he's proven to be a skilled talent evaluator. Over time, he'll prove that out again here.

[FritzDontBlitz]

you guys keep discussing each available free agent as if he's being brought in as the go-to guy, but i'm pretty sure donald driver will be playing next week. maybe we should look at it like this:

is corey bradford or david boston good enough to play as green bay's SEVENTH or even EIGHTH receiver? because that's what we're essentially talking about. the guy doesn't need to have all the tools or complete grasp of the playbook at this point, a 5th wr would probably be looking at no more than 5 passes thrown to him on even a good day. is there a speedster out there capable of stretching the field as a decoy to open up the underneath routes? is there a decent wr out there who's best days are behind him but still has enough to be a good possession receiver? it doesn't have to be a wideout: i'm even open to the possibility of bringing in a running back that may not be a worldbeater in the backfield but has good receiving skills to line up in the slot and create more options in the passing game.

having typed all that, i just thought about leo bookman. from what it sounds like he's just as good (or bad) as everyone else out there, but he did have something like a 4.18 40 time. why not bring him in as a rabbit? couldn't hurt at this point...

[MJZiggy]

What makes him better than the kid they brought in?

[billy_oliver880]

Rod Gardner is out of the question anyway...he was playing for the chiefs last time I looked. http://www.kcchiefs.com/player/rod_gardner/

[BobDobbs]

I just checked and Gardner has 2 catches for 17 yards this year, he's been on the team less than a month though.
It seems to me like the core of this debate revolves around whether the teams interests are better served taking a veteran who probably will give you more help in the short term, or try to find a rookie that might develop into someone who plays on the team for some years. I understand why its driving people crazy that Thompson has gone for the rookie (many times undrafted) time and again.
Jarret Bush wasn't even part of the discussion as a defensive contributor, Tory Humphrey is the BJ Sander of this year (he could be on the practice squad no?). A good point was brought up that Francis and Martin know the offense better than anyone off the street right now. But what about this new guy? Surely, someone is available who Brett could be more confident with.
I think the rationale is that Jennings is out a week at most. So whoever we bring in is effectively our 5th wide receiver barring further injury. David Martin has been playing well(better than David Boston etc would) this means more double tight end sets than 3 recevier or certainly four receiver sets. I love the double tight end, because its much harder to guess what play will be run and how it will be blocked.
Considering all that why not bring in a kid who has college kickoff return experience, because obviously that position is open for the taking. So, since Andre Rison isn't available, that 5th receiver spot is probably more likely to deliver yards through returns rather than receptions.
And hey Matt Millen cut this guy so how bad could he be? [/quote]

[Patler]

the guy doesn't need to have all the tools or complete grasp of the playbook at this point, a 5th wr would probably be looking at no more than 5 passes thrown to him on even a good day. is there a speedster out there capable of stretching the field as a decoy to open up the underneath routes? is there a decent wr out there who's best days are behind him but still has enough to be a good possession receiver? it doesn't have to be a wideout: i'm even open to the possibility of bringing in a running back that may not be a worldbeater in the backfield but has good receiving skills to line up in the slot and create more options in the passing game.

having typed all that, i just thought about leo bookman. from what it sounds like he's just as good (or bad) as everyone else out there, but he did have something like a 4.18 40 time. why not bring him in as a rabbit? couldn't hurt at this point...

When the original roster is set, the 5th wide receiver, 5th linebacker, 7th and 8th DB are almost always picked as much or more for their special teams skills as for for their talent on offense or defense. As several have pointed out, in replacing Robinson and Ferguson you are not replacing receptions. In 5 games, Ferguson had 5 for 31 yards. In four, Koran Robinson had 7 for 89 yards. Francies and Ruvell Martin, who know the offense already, can pick up that level of performance. Both Robinson and Ferguson contributed on special teams, however. THAT is what needs to be replaced.

It would be nice if they could find a real speed guy. Someone who might attract the attention of a safety when he is in the game, even if just to make the safety hesitate just a bit worrying about deep responsibility. The problem with Bookman, from what was written during camp, was that he absolutely couldn't catch. With all his speed, they dumped him two weeks into training camp, after the first preseason game. Apparently he showed absolutely nothing. A guy with that kind of speed would be interesting to have.