Zero2Cool
I own a website
Ha, I figured a way to get the 'insider' crap from JSOnline.com ... 
Click Here
Click Here
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Online
www.jsonline.com | Return to regular view
Original Story URL:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=439587
Packer Chats
Cliff Christl
Visit JS Online's Packer Plus section
THURSDAY, June 22, chat transcript
Cliff Christl
Packer Insider columnist
With the completion of the last of the Packers' "organized team activities," Cliff Christl answers your questions about the team and how they're looking so far in the off-season. The Packers won't convene against as a team until training camp at the end of July.
Q: Bill of Whiting - Hi Cliff. Once again thanks for the opportunity to ask you questions. I am wondering if there is not some morale problem going on in Green Bay. With all the no shows at the O.T.A.s there appears to be a lot of unhappy players, or at least unmotivated players. Starting with Mike McKenzie, Na'al Diggs, Javonn Walker, Darren Sharper, Ryan Longwell, Al Harris etc., I am wondering if something hasn't gone sour in Green Bay, in terms of player relations. It seems ever since Sherman took over as GM and coach, there have been more dissatisfied players complaining and leaving. I believe making the Coach the GM can strain the relationship between coach and players, since now he is no longer just their Main Guy, but he is also the person they have to try to negotiate higher salaries with, which makes him the "bad guy" who has to often say, "No. You just aren't worth what you are asking." I am concerned all the progress made through the years since Reggie White came to Green Bay is being lost, and once again Green Bay will be seen as the NFL's Siberia. What do you think?
A: Cliff Christl - Bill, you posted the first question, so I'll start with you. It's a legitimate question and I understand why you're concerned. But I don't know of a team in the league that doesn't have unhappy players and players who are dissatisfied with their contracts. How many businesses are there where everybody is one big happy family? That's an unrealistic expectation. There were a lot of players unhappy with their contracts or how they were treated during the Wolf era. Bryce Paup comes to mind. Tony Bennett. Sterling Sharpe. He walked out on the team before an opener. As I recall, Chuck Cecil was another. I think Edgar Bennett skipped a minicamp over a contract dispute. Granted, Wolf had an ear to the locker room. And sometimes it does cause problems when the GM and coach are one in the same. And Green Bay isn't for everybody. In fact, I think it's a pretty miserable place to play if you're not winning. But the Packers are like any other business. They have satisfied employees and unhappy employees; they have players who are content with their contracts and some who aren't. That's life. No big deal.
Q: Andrew of Oshkosh - I'm hearing that Rod Gardner is out of favor w/the new coaching staff. He was a first round pick, although on his third time since. Does he look like he can come thru and produce for the Pack, or does he have that bad attitude that people are grumbling about? Thanks!
A: Cliff Christl - I haven't noticed a bad attitude. I don't know where you're coming from on that. I haven't seen a lot of production on the practice field, although Gardner missed several workouts for business reasons and also because of an injury. Gardner is what he is. To this point, he has been a bust. I've never quite understood why so many fans were so excited about the Packers acquiring him. When you're as thin as the Packers are at wide receiver, it's certainly worth the investment in time and money to take a look at Gardner. But he's not Javon Walker. The difference in talent between Walker and Gardner is huge. The difference in talent between Gardner and Ruvell Martin is minimal. Again, there's a small number of special players in the NFL and masses of average to below average players. Gardner falls in the latter category. Q: Andy of Plover - Now that you have witnessed a few practices this season, how would you compare the atmosphere to that of Mike Holmgren's first season?
A: Cliff Christl - I don't see any comparison. When Holmgren took over, the Packers had been losing for like 25 years. You could tell early in training camp that things were going to be different; that Holmgren was a cut above the previous run of coaches. Other than last year, the Packers had a run of 13 successful seasons, although not counting the Ray Rhodes year. This has been a successful franchise. Mike Holmgren and then Mike Sherman ran about as clean and crisp a practices as you'll see in the NFL. So it would be pretty difficult for Mike McCarthy to improve on that or even for anyone to notice much difference if he just maintained the status quo. His approach seems to be different than Sherman's in some ways. Shorter practices, shorter meetings, for example. But these also were OTAs. There were restrictions on what the players could do. I thought the second minicamp was pretty sloppy. I thought the OTAs were less so. I've read pieces about how this is going to be different, how that's going to be different. McCarthy is this and that. Believe me, that's just babble right now. Only time will tell. Q: Steven Wells of Nashville, Tn - Cliff, you have not been exactly praiseworthy of Aaron Rodgers this OTA session. Are you of the opinion that the Packers should be looking for an experienced qb before the season starts? We can hardly afford to be idle if something happens to Favre. Your thoughts...
A: Cliff Christl - If something happens to Favre, the season is over. What veteran quarterback worth a hoot is available at this point? If the Colts lose Peyton Manning, their season is over. A lot of teams don't even have a decent starting quarterback. Also, don't misinterpret what I've written about Aaron Rodgers. I think I've pointed out several times that he looks better than he did last year. That his delivery looks more natural. And he had some good days in practice and made some good throws. But he also was inconsistent in practice and some of his bad days were really bad. What you have to understand is that with rare exception, young quarterbacks are going to be works in progress. There are some with rare talent and, for them, the learning curve is pretty short. Rodgers doesn't fall into the category. It's going to take him time to develop. And he may never develop. I know everybody wants an answer now, but you're not going to get it. Rich Gannon took 12 years to blossom into a solid starter. So settle back in your easy chair and check with me in 2017. Maybe that'll be the year that Rodgers comes into his own. I'm being somewhat facetious there, but the Packers aren't going to find a backup qb at this stage and nobody knows for sure how Rodgers will perform if he's called upon this season. He might be a disaster. But it wouldn't hurt the Packers to find that out. Q: Nik of Eden Prairie, MN - Thanks for the chat, Mr. Christl. In a recent blog, you said that Abdul Hodge "looks the part." Do you think, if he still looks this well when the pads go on for training camp, that he has a legitimate shot at taking the MLB spot away from Barnett? Would the Packers even consider moving Barnett to the outside? If they did, do you think that would be a good idea? Thanks again.
A: Cliff Christl - I'd be surprised if Hodge beat out Barnett. Hodge looks like he could be a solid starter, but he can't cover ground like Barnett. Would they move Barnett? I've always thought middle linebacker was his position, not weak-side. Strong-side? I don't know. My guess is that they'll keep both at middle linebacker this year and Barnett will start. If they had any intention of moving Hodge, I think they would have worked him some on the strong side in the OTAs. But it's tough for a rookie to learn two positions and that's probably why they didn't do it. Q: Jim of Racine - I read that last year Junius Coston had so much potential that the Packers didn't dare put him on the practice squad for fear of losing him. Do you see anyone like that this year?
A: Cliff Christl - Any draft pick who shows potential is likely to get a look from another team if he gets cut. That's why teams don't usually cut their draft choices and certainly those choices in the first four, five rounds. Q: Rich Anglin of Dayton, Ohio - Cliff: Thanks for the chat. As far as I can tell, based largely on your blogs, these mini-camps seem to have little purpose, other than to bring the "newbies" up to speed with some aspects of the offensive and defensive playbooks, to determine some of the basic skills of the rookie draftees and free agents, and to assess the physical condition of the veterans. In other words, I think they have little bearing on who will be on the final roster (other than the Donnell Washington(?)) type of episodes. Do you agree? Otherwise, I suspect the Packers would have made a stronger push to get Pickett and Woodson in for some of these sessions. Should we, as fans, be really disappointed that Woodson has not shown and that Pickett did not show until the third mini-camp was well underway?
A: Cliff Christl - Will the Packers choose their roster based on mini-camps and OTAs? No. But it's part of the evaluation process. Coaches change their minds about players daily throughout training camp and really all year. What do the veterans get out of these camps? Obviously, they aren't critical to their future. But McCarthy put in a new running scheme, changed some terminology. So these workouts gave the established veterans a headstart. If none of it mattered, why would Favre have wasted his time and attended? Then again, playing defense isn't that complicated. Woodson and Pickett should have no problem picking up the system. Keep in mind, too. How many established players are on the Packers' roster? How many have a roster spot locked up? Most of these players are competing for their livelihood. As for Woodson, his absence certainly raises questions about his commitment. A lot of scouts think his best years are behind him. Maybe that's partly why. Q: Pinche Calderon of Santa Fe, NM - Ayieeee. After reading your blog for 6-30 I don't know what to say??? Is it that the defense is playing so well? But at this point, all the action is without pads. Is it that the offense is playing lousy? What constitutes such meager play? What in your mind is the key about the ineffectiveness of the offense to move the ball and to score, so far?
A: Cliff Christl - Here's the unvarnished reality of the situation. You watch practice and there is one player on that team that jumps out. No. 4. I don't mean to minimize the importance of players like Donald Driver, Mark Tauscher, Aaron Kampman and maybe a few others. They go about their jobs like old pros and are effective doing so. I realize that Woodson and Al Harris and Ahman Green weren't there and they're important cogs. But the fact of the matter is that the Packers have one player whose talent jumps out on a practice field and that's their 36 year old quarterback. Q: Jack of Denver - While it's early in camp, I'm getting the impression that the offense could be one of the worst in a long time and that you think Rodgers doesn't have what it takes to be a starter.
A: Cliff Christl - They're obviously banking on Ahman Green making a comeback and being the back that he was. And I'm sure their doctors have given them reason for optimism. And I wouldn't be foolish enough to second-guess their prognosis. But it seems to me that's a big risk. If Green doesn't play to his past level, Favre will have one offensive weapon who would rate as an average to above average player and that's Driver. So my question is: Who is going to make plays for this team? Do I think Aaron Rodgers has what it takes to be a starter? Sure, there's enough ability there for him to become a starter some day. But this is his second year. He hasn't even participated in his second training camp. Who in the heck knows if he's going to be a solid starter? His completion percentage on deep balls this spring was poor. He had a lot of balls deflected at the line. His decision making seemed suspect at times simply because he took off running more than Favre. Those are red flags. But that doesn't mean three, four, five years from now that he couldn't be a quality starter. Q: Kevin of Salem - Cliff, you have often mentioned the value of stars as the difference makers between the good teams and the rest. However, I think just as important can be a grouping that makes a difference. The Packers of 2003 and 2004 had an offensive line that bullied the opposition. They dominated defensive lines week after week and generally took the blitz away from their opponents. Rivera garnered a couple Pro Bowl appearances and I think Flanny was an alternate but none of the o-linemen were individually dominant and probably weren't what would be considered stars. When Thompson let the line fall apart in 2005 he lost a unit that was a dominant, difference maker and was the core strength of the team. While I agree a team depends on its stars, sometimes the star is a unit like the Packers offensive line prior to the 4 and 12.
A: Cliff Christl - Offensive line play is critical. Games are still decided at the line of scrimmage. You're right, the Packers had one of the best groups in the league for a run there and losing their guards changed all that. But I don't think that line dominated defenses. It wasn't a smash-mouth group. It didn't play power football. It didn't block for seven-step drops. It had the advantage of playing with a quarterback who got rid of the ball as quickly as any in the league and a premier running back. Great skill people normally make great offensive lines. That's why you see more free agents and late-round picks playing offensive line than any other position. They just have to be solid players. How many times has Jeff Jagodzinski implied that since he's been here? He took mostly unsung and unwanted players in Atlanta and turned it into a good, solid group. But that line was blocking for one of the most dangerous qbs in the game and a premier running back, Warrick Dunn. The Packers' problem last year was two-fold. Their new guards weren't good enough to play. But what hurt even more was that the Packers lost Javon Walker and Green. So they had no playmakers. Even with Wahle and Rivera, they wouldn't have been as good as offensively. Q: Dave of Palo Alto, CA - Should the league make any rule changes to make it more difficult for players to demand renegotiation of their contracts, particularly recent contracts? For example, couldn't the league rule no renegotiation prior to the last year of a player's contract? Is the NFLPA strong enough to defeat such a rule?
A: Cliff Christl - They just renegotiated a new collective bargaining agreement and I don't believe the owners even had that issue on the table. Players are going to be unhappy with their contracts. They're going to try and get more money. That's the American way. Yes, I know, some of you are going to argue, but it's also the American way to honor contracts. But not in professional sports. Management and coaches break or try to break contracts all the time, so why shouldn't players? Q: donavon of beaumont, tx - hello cliff. with the ota's about to end, what is your gut reaction to how the players are responding to the new coaching staff? i love al harris. what do you think the packers will/should do in regards to his contract. thank you for you time.
A: Cliff Christl - Most of these guys are fighting for their jobs. How are they responding to the new coaching staff? They're trying to impress them, so they can count on a paycheck come September. Again, football, the Packers -- it's no different than life. Honest. It's not surreal. These are just typical human beings -- except for their athletic talents -- who shouldn't be placed on any pedestal or viewed from a different perspective than your next door neighbor. What would you do if you got a new boss and you knew he was going to fire half the staff within three months? You'd try to impress him, right? What should they do about Harris? Probably nothing. He'll eventually play. Q: kwed of dubuque - Cliff, Is this packer team still sliding or has it entered the upswing portion of a rebuilding program? Is Favre the only reason to answer "still sliding". I am worried that we are doing all we can to go 8-8. I want to see us do all we can to go 13-3 four years from now. thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - Whether Ted Thompson is willing to admit it or not, the Packers are rebuilding. In this era, change is constant with every team. But the Packers needed more of an overhaul than most. And I think the process has started and Thompson is doing it wisely through the draft. But I think it's just begun and it's going to take time. Losing Wahle and Walker in their primes, just after the previous regime lost McKenzie, were big setbacks on top of the losses through age and for other reasons. So it's going to take time just to compensate for those setbacks. But I think Thompson has started to improve the infra-structure of the roster. But even his first draft took a hit when he lost a promising young receiver in Terrence Murphy. And the bigger challenges will come in the near future: Finding some playmakers and replacing Favre. Right now, Favre is probably all that separates the Packers from being the worst team in football. So they need to start putting some new pieces in place pretty quick or things could get even uglier than last year. Q: Josh of Princeton, NJ - Hi Cliff, why did Bob Sanders scream "Let 'em have it" on Tuesday on that hail mary? Was he just frustrated that McCarthy kept giving the offense more chances or what? Seemed quite strange to me when you wrote about it.
A: Cliff Christl - It seemed strange to me, too. But I think McCarthy and Sanders were on the same page. In fact, I think McCarthy delivered the message to Sanders. Q: Dan of Lowville, NY - Based on his performance so far this year, are you starting to get the feeling that Aaron Rodgers isn't the guy, that maybe drafting him #1 was a mistake? Or is it still too early to make a judgment on that?
A: Cliff Christl - Too early. Q: Doug G of Minneapolis - Do you think it was worth overspending on Woodson and ending up with the Al Harris problem?
A: Cliff Christl - Is Harris reacting to Woodson's contract? Probably. In Pro Football Weekly's annual pre-season player ratings based on polling GMs, scouts, etc., Harris is rated ahead of Woodson as a corner. But was it worth overspending for Woodson? I still wouldn't fault that move. The Packers had cap money to spend this year and it wasn't a contract that figures to haunt them down the road. But fans also have to realize that Woodson has been an injury-prone player who no longer commands the same respect than he once did. Q: Steve T of Onalsaka, WI - With Aaron Rodgers now having more then a full year learning the Packer's system, have you seen enough from him to have confidence in him taking over for Favre in the not so distant future?
A: Cliff Christl - No. Q: John Henry of Black River - Cliff, As baseball begins to see inquiries beyond steriods, which they can test for, into Human Growth Hormone, which can't be tested, is there any discussion in the NFL? The physique of the average running back or linebacker is remarkable if achieved solely through diet and weightlifting. The NFL seems to catch almost no one, yet they claim to have an extensive testing program. What do you hear about the drug culture in the league?
A: Cliff Christl - Don't know. But I remember talking several years ago to a doctor who was an expert in the field and he told me that cheating goes on all the time and anybody can get away with it. Q: Terry Chaney of Royal Oak, Mi. - In your last weblog you mentioned the "let em have it" from the Defensive coordinator. Have you ever seen that before in a practice?
A: Cliff Christl - No. I started covering training camps and/or minicamps in 1969 and on a regular basis in 1974 -- although I missed some years when I was covering baseball, etc. -- and I don't recall ever seeing it happen before. Q: Ryan Schneider of Lexington KY - Will we really have an O Line that can protect the QB and create room for RBS?
A: Cliff Christl - I think Colledge and Spitz have some potential. I think Wells can be basically what Flanagan was: A good, solid center. I think the bigger question might be: Will they have a running back who can get through a hole and pop some big runs? Q: Richard of Johnson City, TN - Hi Cliff, nice to read your chats again. What is your take on the DB situation in general and CB specifically? I believe Harris has 2 years left on his contract and that is a lot of time and money lost if he sits out. Its one thing for Walker to get a new deal elsewhere and risk $550K or so, but I don't see where Harris at his age could reasonably expect to recoup what he would lose. Last year Harris was touted as one of the best cover corners, but who knows since everyone threw at the easier Carroll. This year maybe he wants more money ASAP before we find out he isn't as great if teams start throwing away from Woodson. Also it seems the offense isn't doing much of anything in these OTAs. Are they that bad or is the defense really improving even without the 2 starting CBs?
A: Cliff Christl - It takes playmakers to make plays and I didn't see any in the OTAs other than Favre and, to a lesser extent, Driver. I think Harris realizes his time is running out to make some money. He has been a solid cover corner. You've seen that. Not great, but good. But he's also at an age where he could lose it any time. And because he's somewhat limited physically, he could lose it faster than most. Then again, because he's a wily veteran, he could last longer than one might expect. You just never know. Q: Brian of Atlanta - There has been concern the past few years about the defense, but I'm worried about the offense. What key areas do you think the offense needs to focus on to move the ball down the field?
A: Cliff Christl - For starters, you need a running game. They didn't have one last year and you saw the results. It's a passing league, but you can't win in the NFL without the threat of a running game. Q: Mark of Bear Land - Cliff, Who do you think is the top wide receiver in the NFC North? And where among NFC North wide receivers do you think Donald Driver ranks? Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - In the PFW ratings, Roy Williams was ranked the top wide receiver in the NFC North and I'd probably agree, although it seems like he should be so much better. Muhsin Muhammad was ranked next, then Driver. They were pretty much bunched together compared to the rest of the league. Williams was 21st; Muhammad, 24th; and Driver, 27th. It's not a real good group and probably explains, in part, why the NFC North had one playoff team last year and it lost its only game. Randy Moss was ranked No. 1 and Javon Walker, 15th. When those two were in the division, it made for more explosive offenses. Q: Tom of Chicago - Cliff - enjoy the chats. What is your take on Woodson skipping voluntary practices? The team made a huge commitment to him and he has been MIA. Has McCarthy given any indication he is agitated?
A: Cliff Christl - They were voluntary workouts and so I think it's safe to assume that Woodson just didn't feel like practicing, although he apparently was in Europe early in the month. McCarthy said he would have preferred to have Woodson in camp. But there was nothing he could do about it. Q: Eric of Columbus , OH - Hey Cliff. Thanks for taking my question. I have anxiously waiting for your next chat so I could submit 2 questions. First, do you think A.J. Hawk will be the defensive rookie of the year or does Mario beat him out? It seems a linebacker has a better chance of catching peoples eye more so than a DE. Secondly, as it pertains to Farve, does he throw more or less than 27 TD's this year and more or less than 27 INT's. I am hoping for a fantastic year from the 3rd greatest sports icon in sports history!!! Thanks Cliff and GO PACKERS!!!
A: Cliff Christl - I've seen Hawk in a handful of no-pads practices. Nobody knows at this point, including the Packers, if he's even going to be anything special as a player. The best rookie defender last year was the 12th pick in the draft. For Favre to have a good year, the Packers have to have a running back who strikes fear in a defense and receivers who can make plays. Right now, the question is: Who is that going to be? Q: Al Buenning of Schofield, Wi - Cliff, I've admired William Henderson's durability and special teams play for years, not to mention that he's a class act on and off the field. What's left in that old tank and can he fit in the McCarthy/Jagz "updated" West Coast offense?
A: Cliff Christl - Who knows when he'll lose it completely? And it really doesn't matter that much. He's not a key to the offense. Plus, he plays a position that is becoming somewhat extinct. Q: Jack of Rapid City, SD - The Packers cannot move the ball through the air in the training camps against their second and third string defensive backs with this current group of wide receivers. What makes anyone think they will have a shot of doing anything once the regular season starts? My question is, do you see Ted Thompson making a trade for a veteran Wide receiver before the training camp starts? At this point, I can't see this season being much different then last season... aka. The packers have 3rd down and 6 and driver is triple covered. It makes no sense to me to pay Brett Farve 10 Million dollars a year when he does not have the personnel he needs in order to compete. Do you remember in 1995 when Ron Wolf realized he was short of targets for Farve? He immediately traded a 2nd for a 30 year old Mark Jackson. Do you see the Packers making a similar deal this year?
A: Cliff Christl - Nobody is going to trade you a good player at any position at this point. Q: Steve of Sheboygan - I hope all the people that wanted the Packers to dip heavily into the free agent market are happy because our best cornerback appears on his way out like McKenzie and Walker. This is a bad situation that is made worse by Mr. Woodsen not coming to any of the OTA's (this must be Woodsen's way of showing his appreciation to the organization that was quite frankly dumb enough to pay him the money he got). Are defensive backfield which appeared much improved and a potential strength now appears to be weak and an overall problem. Would it be smart to give Harris some incentives in his contract that are reasonably attainable? The guy has been a solid person and contributor until this point (use the McKenzie situation as a learning experience - heck if we would have gave McKenzie a little more, the Pack would have been better and they would not have had to spend more to get Woodsen and create this present situation). Also, I have really respected Packers management's ability to sign guys like Green, Driver, Harris, Mckensie to reasonable deals but lately it appears that it has come back to bite us. Any comments about those deals?
A: Cliff Christl - Those deals made good economic sense for the Packers and that's why the players became unhappy. So flip a coin. What's the better way to do business? Q: Mike of Chicago - After viewing the OTAs do you see any interesting wrinkles that Bob Sanders has introduced into the scheme that differed from Jim Bates? Is it a more aggressive or conservative defense than last year's?Who's immerging as the front runner to start next to Ryan Pickett? Also, regarding AJ Hawk, I know there was a lot of talking comparing him to current/former NFL linebackers so I'm looking for your assessment: who does he remind you of?
A: Cliff Christl - My understanding is that the Packers are basically running the same defense, although any coach is going to make at least some subtle changes. Start next to Pickett? I'm not sure he'll start all the time. I'm sure the plan is to rotate four, five defensive tackles. That's what the Packers have done in practice. There were no designated starters. As for Hawk, he doesn't remind me of anybody at this point. He missed half the OTAs and linebackers aren't going to stand out in that setting. He looks like a good athlete who works hard. Those are big pluses. But he has a lot to prove. Remember, more than 50% of No. 5 picks never make a Pro Bowl. Q: C'Bear of Oviedo, fL - Cliff, What's the real message we're getting from Woodson by him "unable" to attend the recent OTA's...He just signed a generous contract and his actions speak anything but grateful. It's a joke.
A: Cliff Christl - Let me ask you this. If you were paid your regular salary and given a choice of working or not working, which would you choose to do? I'm guessing a lot of people would choose getting paid and not working over getting paid and working. Q: JJ of Westland, MI - I was reading an article in the Rocky Mountain News that began by asking the question "in the copy cat NFL, why hasn't more teams copied the Bronco's zone blocking concept"? That lead me to an article written over a year ago comparing the 3 teams (Joe Pendry brought zone blocking to Houston). The article (by Brian Hook) suggested zone blocking had fewer "stuffs" and not really any more "long runs" , is very difficult to teach, hard to get the right personnel, and there is an alarming number of injuries - to running backs, as well as d-linemen. My point is, that it would take at least a season for the Packers to grasp the "system" and achieve success. That said - how many Super Bowl appearances did Denver attend w/o a stud QB as the reason for being there? I see a 6-10 season ahead...
A: Cliff Christl - Interesting comments about the zone blocking scheme. Keep in mind there are no cure-alls in the NFL. Two things will be key here: How good a running back the Packers put on the field and whether their young guards develop to the point where they become acceptable starters. Q: Sheetu Jain of Nashville, TN - I am still wondering about the Ryan Longwell decision. Some of your tongue and cheek arguments for the decision were that he couldn't kick off well, but I'm not one of the people who cared about that. And I know you've said that kickers can be unearthed from a lot of places, since longwell himself was a UFA, but just because the odds might be a little better than at other positions, why give up on a proven commodity? It seems like kicker is at least one position where the quality guys can do well into their mid 30's and sometimes well beyond. But one of the few consistently clutch guys on the team, and you let him go without a fight? Whats your thought on the reasoning behind it? Was it just dollars and cents? Did they just want Viniteri really bad or something?
A: Cliff Christl - It could be disastrous. I agree with you that Longwell's kickoffs weren't a serious problem. He was generally reliable at crunch time and in a tough climate. I think the Packers decided he wasn't worth the money. They're rolling the dice. We'll see what happens. Q: John of Warsaw, IN - Cliff, I have been a diehard Packer fan for thirty four years and enjoyed football immensely during that period but I must say the recent actions of McKenzie, Walker and now Harris have disgusted me even more than the losing culture we established during the 70s and 80s. I must say that in spite of my love for the Packers and for football, the actions of players in this era is close to pushing me to the same end that baseball did in the 90s after multiple player strikes. I quit watching! For the life of me I do not understand how players making millions of dollars who freely signed their contracts and who have years left on their deals feel they are being cheated because someone else signed a more recent contract for more money. Using their logic, shouldn't Bart Starr and Jim Taylor call Ted Thompson and tell him that they were vastly underpaid by today's standards when they played 40 years ago and that they will refuse to support the Packers or show up to anymore promotional events unless the Packers give them more money? It is crazy! What does Charles Woodson or Aaron Kampman's contracts this year (supposedly to improve the team) have to do with what Al Harris agreed to 2 years ago? What will it take for these players to realize that the signing of other good players will enhance their opportunity to be better and thereby give them a better chance to win and excel? How do we know how good Al Harris is? He had a stiff on the other side of the field who gave up a pass interference penalty or holding call every time the other team through on him. Naturally Harris wasn't thrown on. Still he never has been a pro bowler. With Woodson on the other side, either Harris will be really phenomenal or he will start getting beat more often. We don't know yet which it will be so why should the Packers redo a contract with 3 years left on it. And he's 32 years old to boot. Cliff I would not be so fed up if this weren't the third year in a row of such actions but Green bay seems to be getting their share of malcontents these days and if this is the direction a supposed "team" game is going perhaps I will turn in my Dish Network Sunday Ticket for a fishing pole. The whole thing is a huge disappointment to real football fans. Thanks for letting me air.
A: Cliff Christl - Players had no leverage in the 1960s. But you might recall that Jim Taylor played out his option and left, unhappy about his contract. I'm not going to argue with you. It's your choice: Quit watching the games if you don't like it. I don't watch any sports on television unless I need to for work. I enjoy high school basketball and that's what I watch. Don't watch the NBA finals. Don't watch the NCAA tournament. I have no interest. Same with football. I prefer to watch high school football over college football. I watch NFL games because it's my job. You have the same options. Q: Kramer of Albuquerque - Hey Cliff, thanks for the chats. Your unbiased insights give us out-of-towners some feel for what goes on during camps. When I lived in GB I could take in some practices and draw my own conclusions. Now I rely a lot on your reports and chats. Now that the mini-camps and OTA's are over and the coaches have had an opportunity to work out "most" of the players, old and new, should fans be more concerned about the offense or the defense? In recent years it was always the defense that was the weakest. Is that still the case?
A: Cliff Christl - I think on defense, you can sometimes make something out of nothing. The Packers kind of did that last year. Just find players who will play hard, fit roles and you can be ok. It takes talent at the skill positions to have a good offense. If I were you, I'd be more concerned about the offense at this point. Q: Jeff N. of Apex, NC - Hi Cliff, If you were a betting man who would you think will start at right Guard for Green Bay on opening day against the Bears? Spitz or Costen?
A: Cliff Christl - Spitz. Q: marv of houston - With the Packers using Rich Gannon as there QB guru aren't they undermining their current QB coach? It seems that McCarthy and their QB coach should be helping the young quarterbacks.
A: Cliff Christl - That's true about the coaches. But I can't imagine how bringing in a former NFL player who enjoyed some success for one day undermines anything. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Q: WILL of GLADSTONE, MI - Cliff, Couldn't wait to ask you this question!!! How close or how far are we away from being equivalent to a team like Carolina, who one year made it to the Super Bowl, and the next year became a lottery-pick team because of numerous injuries, only to come back last year and make it to the playoffs? Thank You! Will
A: Cliff Christl - How far? Maybe a Julius Peppers and a Steve Smith away. Q: Richard Wuchte of Milwaukee - If my Chicago Bears stay healthy, especially at QB, wouldn't you say they are the odds on favor to win the division once again?
A: Cliff Christl - No question. On paper, they're the team to beat in the NFC, if Grossman stays healthy and continues to improve. Q: Randy Nedrelo of Onalaska, WI - Assuming there are solid players at all other positions, how many star players (true playmakers) does a team need to be a championship contender? If the quarterback is very good, yet not star (Matt Hasselback for example), how would the need for stars be different?
A: Cliff Christl - I think it varies from team to team and year to year. It depends on the positions. It doesn't do much good, for example, to have a Randy Moss and a Kerry Collins throwing to him. Hasselbeck benefited from having the best back in football last year and the best tackle-guard combination in football. The Steelers' best players also played positions that you don't normally associate with playmakers: A safety, linebacker, nose tackle, offensive linemen. So last year was an unusual year. Plus, probably the best team, Indianapolis, was a victim of some unfortunate circumstances. Breaks also play a big part in it. I don't think the Steelers would have beaten the Bengals if Carson Palmer hadn't been hurt. He was the best player in that game and I think would have spelled the difference. Q: Optimistic in '06 of Door County - Cliff: love your writing and insights...here are my questions: Given that, from all of your accounts, the offense is going to be bottom-of-the-NFL-barrel this season, what are the chances that the Pack's '06 defense can carry the team the way the Bears D carries that team? Does the addition of Woodson, Hawk, Hodge and some of the FAs make the defense a top-10 unit? I know that you've said that Hawk's athleticism stands out, but was he making plays in the OTAs(understanding the its tough to judge linebackers without pads)?...he is a scary looking dude...the guys at profootballtalk.com (apparently, Vikings fans) have really laid into Hawk already. Thanks for your insights.
A: Cliff Christl - The Bears have much better talent on defense. Q: Dan of Chicago - I guess I really don't understand some Packer fans. When I play pick-up basketball, there are always 2-3 players that are clearly better than everyone else. You take that one good guy away from a team and they can't win. The rest of the guys on the team you could sub out for Cliff and you wouldn't see a real drop off. That's why trading Walker hurt the Pack so much.
A: Cliff Christl - Great analogy. It basically applies to any sport at any level. That's why it baffles me when people don't get it. Q: Glenn of Altoona, wi - I went to one of the OTA's and I was watching Hawk pretty closely. I understand he is still learning the system and is probably thinking way more than reacting but it seemed like he set too high and he was slow to react to the plays. You could see his speed on some plays but he just didn't jump out at me any more than anyone else. Your thoughts, and should we be a bit concerned?
A: Cliff Christl - I would agree to a certain extent. But it's really hard for a linebacker to show much in that kind of setting. And he was behind. Q: Brad of La Crosse - Cliff, In reading your blogs during the Packers OTA's,I have noticed you have mentioned Tra Boger as an intriguing prospect at safety. What makes you feel that way?
A: Cliff Christl - Good size. Good ball skills. Some athletic ability. Q: Rod of Yuba City, Ca. - Cliff, I want to say first that I appreciate your efforts and your insights into Packer Football or just football in general. You've observed vast amounts of knowledge just by being around the game and its participants that I think even you underestimate yourself. Believe me, I'm not just kissing your *** here. Anyway, I think the Pack will get stronger as the year progresses. I see them as finishing 6-10. But, because of their strong finish, Brett Favre will come back for another year because he sees an improved defense and offensive line. He believes the Pack will be one running back (albeit a good one) short of challenging in the playoffs in 2007. Am I crazy or what?
A: Cliff Christl - Thanks for the kind words, but I'm just a working stiff who tries to do my job well. Nothing more, nothing less. I think you're being overly optimistic. All the years of winning and drafting late have caught up with this team. And Favre is close to retirement. Thanks for all the questions. It was a long, long list. Sorry to those who posted and didn't get an answer.
© 2006, Journal Sentinel Inc. All rights reserved. | Produced by Journal Interactive | Privacy Policy
Journal Sentinel Inc. is a subsidiary of Journal Communications.
