PDA

View Full Version : Green Bay Packers Discussion


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

GadoR'Savior
03-26-2007, 10:45 PM
damn injuries Gary Berry was goin 2 be a special saftey, who just happen to have a tight name! haha i really liked that guy, it was a shame. Underwood i think would be a fine starter i mean after Roman and Manual i might look good out there and im 5'11 215 and run a sad and sorry 5.4 40 yeah and rep 225 8x (Yes that my advertisment to the packers if TT happens to ever come across this post) haha j/k but honestly i do like Culver and Underwood and think they could start

GB12
03-26-2007, 10:50 PM
damn injuries Gary Berry was goin 2 be a special saftey, who just happen to have a tight name! haha i really liked that guy, it was a shame. Underwood i think would be a fine starter i mean after Roman and Manual i might look good out there and im 5'11 215 and run a sad and sorry 5.4 40 yeah and rep 225 8x (Yes that my advertisment to the packers if TT happens to ever come across this post) haha j/k but honestly i do like Culver and Underwood and think they could start


I really don't see it in Culver. If Underwood takes the job I would be fine with having Culver as the back up and then cutting ties with Manual next year. He should be a decent to good back up both I don't see him doing anything more than that.

Football Fan
03-27-2007, 01:29 AM
Packer Chats
Visit JS Online's Packer Plus section
WEDNESDAY, March 21 chat transcript
Cliff Christl
Packer Insider columnist

Cliff Christl answers your questions in our regular Insider chat.


Q: Dave of Saint Louis Park - Cliff, Given the success their mentor Ron Wolf had picking QB's 3rd--thru-7th rounds, and the advancing age of Favre, are you at all surprised that neither Sherman nor Thompson has done similarly? Yes, Aaron Rogers, but where they got him in the 1st they almost couldn't pass. Given how long you've stated it will likely take the Packers to find even a decent replacement for Favre, this seems an area that hasn't been aggressively pursued.

A: Cliff Christl - Dave, you posted the first question, we'll start with you. First, let me point out that Thompson has drafted a quarterback in each of his two drafts: Rodgers in 2005 and Ingle Martin in 2006. So I don't think you can criticize him. One of Sherman's mistakes was that he traded too many picks and that didn't leave him enough to draft a quarterback. But you make a good point. Years ago, I remember John Madden telling me the hardest time to find a quarterback is when you don't have one. I think that usually holds true for whatever reasons. And, yes, Wolf had some success in the mid to late rounds drafting quarterbacks -- when he didn't need one -- but only two have proven to be capable starters: Hasselbeck and Brunell at one time. That's still a pretty good percentage. In fact, it's an exceptional percentage.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Greg benkowski of Omaha, Nebrasak - What is Brett Favre's opinion on the possibility of acquiring Randy Moss?

A: Cliff Christl - I don't know that Favre has said anything. Favre's agent, who also represented Moss at one time, has been lobbying for the trade. So I assume that means Favre likes the idea. Why wouldn't he? It might give him a better chance to win and might give him the best deep threat he's had, or at least second best to Javon Walker. Moss was exceptional at one time. I would be surprised if the Moss of today is better than the Javon Walker of 2003.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Paul of Viroqua, WI - Mr. Christl, let me say first that I enjoy your articles and will miss them greatly upon your retirement. Now, in regard to your article of 13 March "Here's The Evidence On How Great Players Win Super Bowls," I would like to offer my own opinion regarding "great players." Without a "very good" offensive line, fullback, and tight end, NO quarterback or halfback will ever be "great." Wide receivers is another story as their ability to get open, catch the ball, and take the ball from defenders is paramount in being considered a great receiver. An item I'm not quite clear on is whether Mr. Buchsbaum's ratings for those rating years you list were made before or after the year of the Super Bowl win. If it was made after someone had a great year I would suggest it's irrelevant as anyone can have an exceptional game/year then return to mediocrity. Though they didn't win the Super Bowl in 2001, the St. Louis Rams had six players on Mr. Buchsbaum's 2002 Top Fifty players list (Marshall Faulk rated # 1, Kurt Warner rated # 2, Aeneas Williams rated # 10th, Orlando Pace rated # 20, Terry Holt rated # 44, and Grant Wistrom rated # 50 and were 14 - 2 in 2001 but with the same six players on there roster in 2002 they finished 7 - 9. Therefore, with six players on Mr. Buchsbaum's Top Fifty list, the Cardinals couldn't even play .500 ball. I don't mean to demean your theory nor dismiss everything you say, I merely want to point out that nothing is etched in stone. You're a great writer and like any writer I'm sure you could make an equally strong case with the exact opposite conclusion of you 13 March article. A couple of other minor points I would like to address are: Johnny Unitas; using Unitas in your article is really apples and oranges, football in the Unitas era can't be compared to today's quarterbacks due to specialty players, the speed of the game, constant infusion of fresh legs in to the line, the pass rush, etc.. However, as you used Unitas I would like to use Joe Namath to support my claims. After the Jet Super Bowl victory over the Baltimore Colts, Namath NEVER led a team to a victory over a team with a better than .500 record. I'm sure Mr. Buchsbaum had Namath very highly rated after the Super Bowl but facts show Namath was nothing more than a pedestrian quarterback. There were a couple of lines you used in your article that disturbs me. 1. "Brady was a sixth-round draft pick". "Thus, personnel were slow to give his due." "They weren't going to concede they were wrong based on one season or maybe even two or three." 2. "Clearly, he (Brady) was a top player as soon as he became a starter and his No. 1 ranking before this past season was a much a reflection of his play in 10 and 03 as it was his play in 05." "It was just that scouts were either slow to recognize his talents or slow to admit a mistake or both." Both of these were assumptions on your part to support your theory. Assumptions sometimes can be construed as facts. Finally, your Pittsburgh Steeler coverage was a little over the top!! You stated that after the Super Bowl the Steelers had four players in the top 50. You then say "One also could argue that they easily could have had three others." You then say "If the scouts had rated the Steelers two-headed monster at running back as one, they also COULD have included it in the top 50." You express the opinion that Joey Porter just barely missed the top 50 list." This is all summed up by saying "In other words, the Steelers had four of the top 50 players in the game, more than any other team, and ESSENTIALLY had the equivalent of a top 50 player at three other positions. And if they had a least seven of the best 60 players in the game, it was a unusually high number of good players, maybe more than any team since the talent-loaded Cowboys of the early 1990's." Cliff!!! You made the jump from 4 to 7 top players by expanding the top 50 list to the top 60 list. As I said, you're a good writer and you have masterfully made your case, however; I'm still convinced the offensive line, the fullback, and the tight ends decide whether a quarterback and halfback are great, good, or average. Enjoy your retirement to the max.

A: Cliff Christl - Paul, with all due respect, you make some good arguments, but I think most of them are totally off base and show a lack of understanding about the game. Let's take your points one by one. 1) Yes, you need a good offensive line and certainly a good to very good left tackle. But most offensive linemen in the game fall into that same category: Good, just good. There are very few who are exceptional. That's why if you look at most of the top teams for the past decade or more, their offensive linemen were mostly late picks and free agents. Take, for example, the right guard position on the Packers. Ron Hallstrom, a good player, had a typically solid year in 1992, his last with the team. The Packers sign Harry Galbreath. He's solid for three years. In '96, they replace him with Adam Timmerman, a second-year, seventh-round draft pick, and win the Super Bowl. Timmerman leaves, they replace him with Marco Rivera, a comparable player. Rivera leaves and the Packers suffer for one year. But now they've got Jason Spitz and I'm guessing he'll be a solid starter for several years. The same at center: Campen to Winters to Flanagan to Wells. Not much difference. If you go back and study other offensive lines around the league, you'll find the same thing. The Colts won the Super Bowl this year with two below average guards and after losing their right tackle to injury. The fullback position is becoming extinct. Watch games and see how many snaps fullbacks get with most teams. Tight end? Yeah, a good deep threat can make a big difference. But what was the last team to win a Super Bowl with better than just a good tight end? I'd say the Ravens with Shannon Sharpe in 2000. If those positions were so important, why are those essentially the lowest paid positions in the game? I think the answer is obvious. Because GMs and coaches don't place anywhere near as much value on them as you do -- maybe you alone -- and they also recognize that good ones are a dime a dozen. 2) I used Buchsbaum's ratings after the Super Bowl season. Here's why: Most players in the league are up and down. They might have a very good year, a sub-par, a good year. The great players are normally consistent as long as they're healthy. But the others aren't. What sense would it make when trying to explain why the Packers won the Super Bowl to address Favre's standing as a player based on his 1995 performance as opposed to his 1996 performance. Your logic on that one totally baffles me. Also, players ranked in the top 10 rarely have a great year and then fall off unless there's an injury involved. If you look at most of the players Buchsbaum listed in the top 10 over that period, they will be serious candidates for the Hall of Fame. Kampman and Driver had big statistical years last year for the Packers. Will they be in this year's top 10? No. Might not even be in the top 50. They're not good enough. 3) As for your Rams example, I'm guessing some of those players had down years or injury situations, but I don't have the time to research it. Warner had been the MVP of the league. But didn't an injury lead to his rapid descent? That's the NFL. Other than qbs, offensive linemen and rare talents like Rice, Payton, White, etc., players generally have very short shelf lives. And even some qbs do. Warner was one. The year you noted was three years after the Rams won the Super Bowl. That said, some of those players continued to be special: Notably Pace and Holt. 4) Your point about Unitas is well taken. It was a different game. I don't think I'm alone among those who think he was the greatest qb of all time for his era. But let's move on to Namath. You obviously never saw Namath play. I'm guessing that any living coach or scout who saw Namath would agree that he was one of the most talented, if not the most talented quarterback, in NFL history. But he had bad knees and he was like Lynn Dickey soon after that Super Bowl season. He became a statue. The two most talented qbs I've ever seen were Namath and Bert Jones. Both had their careers cut short by injuries. So they're not the greatest I've seen. But they were great for a short time. They were both much better passers than Favre. So don't just draw conclusions from looking at statistics. Go watch some old tapes. As for Brady, I think he's better than Montana. Throws a more accurate deep ball, could play in any system. Last season, Brady played with two starting wide receivers that were virtually castoffs. Favre has played with mediocre receivers, but nothing as bad as Caldwell and Gaffney. The Patriots didn't have a great running game, either, yet they came within a minute and one score of probably winning a fourth Super Bowl. Sorry for being blunt, but if you can't recognize Brady's talents and don't consider him a Hall of Fame quarterback, I would suggest you switch to watching bowling. 5) I know I'm going on and on. Yes, I took some leaps in drawing opinions about the Steelers. And I admitted they maybe won because of the depth of their very good players as opposed to any superstars. Maybe they were an exception to my theory. But I don't buy that. I didn't get into this in the column because it was long enough. But I thought both Roethlisberger and Polamalu were top 10 players that year, superstars for at least a year. They might have been flashes in the pan: Roethlisberger because of the accident and maybe Polamalu because of some shortcomings that teams have learned to exploit. If you don't get football, look at other sports. Dwayne Wade. Was he not a great player last year when he led his team to the NBA title? Was he not one of the top two or three players in the game? But now he's dealing with an injury and, if it's severe enough, there's a chance he might never again be the same player. Tiger Woods is great every year. Other golfers are up and down. But if someone other than Woods wins three, four, five tournaments they'll be recognized for having a great year. But the next year, they might not make the cut half the time and their stock plummets. Again, great players typically play consistently at least for several years if they stay healthy, the same as Woods.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave Verhasselt of Wrightstown - Cliff, I know you're not a fan, but surely you can identify an "entertaining" game from a snoozer. In all your years covering the Packers, what would you say was the most entertaining, or exciting game you've seen the Packers play? Along the same lines, which was the most exciting or entertaining team or season? For me, I'll make a case for the Monday night Redskins game in 1983....and though they didn't make the playoffs, the '89 Packers certainly kept fans on the edge of their seats.

A: Cliff Christl - I covered that Monday night game vs. the Redskins, but it wasn't exciting to me. I was working and, I think working under a tight deadline. I don't remember exactly when we switched to an a.m. paper when I was in Green Bay. But, typically, for night games, we have to have our stories submitted to an editor within minutes of the end of the game. In other words, you're writing your story or maybe two, keeping a play-by-play and keeping notes all the way through. I was probably sitting in the press box cussing that both teams were scoring too much because I couldn't keep up and was in danger of missing my deadline. And when you miss deadline in our business, you hear about it. If the Packer game ends at 11:01 and our deadline is 11:05, you're expected to meet the deadline and have your entire story done. The best Packer game I ever saw was the '62 Packers-Lions game in Lambeau, then new City Stadium. Probably the two best teams in the NFL in the Lombardi Era -- from 1959 through '67 -- were the '62 Packers and the '62 Lions. It was a 9-7 game, a great defensive battle. And I was 15 and didn't have to work. So I enjoyed it. Most entertaining season? I was covering baseball in '89 and really didn't watch the Packers. There were two years there where I didn't pay attention because I wasn't writing about them at all. What might have been my most exciting season was 1980. The last exhibition game, the Packers get beat, 38-0. Ezra Johnson gets caught eating a hot dog on the sideline. All you know what breaks loose. The defensive line coach quits the week before the opener. Then, the Packers shock the Bears on that fluke play by Chester Marcol. But they finish 5-10-1 and one of the loses is to the Bears, 61-7, when Starr gets in a brouhaha with Neill Armstrong, the Bears' coach, after the game. There were stories to write almost every day about how Starr was in danger of losing his job, problems in the locker room, etc. That's what I think most good newspaper guys live for: Big news stories, opportunities to unearth stories that nobody else has. I don't know how many times I need to make this point: But my focus is my job. Whether the Packers win 48-47 or lose 61-7, whether they win the Super Bowl or go 4-12, whether I have to interview Brett Favre or T.J. Rubley, it doesn't matter. My job, my focus is the same. By the way, do you know that before every NFL game, the press box announcer informs those in the press box that there will be absolutely no cheering and if anyone violates the rule, they will be ejected? It even bothers me when I hear someone next to me cheering under their breath. Very few do, but when it happens, it's distracting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: phil of green bay - cliff,good luck in your retirement, while i cant remember ever really agreeing with you on any significant issue regarding the pack, ( going back to you and begels witch hunt for starr) ,you have provided a great forum for us fans ,and have never shied away from printing opposing views.my last two points i will disagree with you are :i dont believe, (because your not one ) you get the idea of being a "fan"-many of us dont lead the gifted life that you do, covering sports full time getting handsomely paid for it, riding off on your harley at will,a great wife and in fact life...many of us have had miserable marriages and worse divorces, lay-offs , bankruptcies, ungrateful kids and 25 year old bosses who cant tie their own shoes...and the only respite we receive is the 3 hours on sunday and the countless hours we spend immersed in the packer spell..i in fact devote about 55 hours a week reading about pfball..just as one who loves wine can site the virtues of a merlot, many packer fans can do the same with play calling , clock management and yes even free agency...i really do believe you underestimate the knowledge of many packer fans...secondly you fail to realize that the pursuit of a super bowl is a dynamic relationship..not a static one...ill guarantee you that the 30 non super bowl gms arent comparing their rosters to the 85 bears or the 96 packers...but to the 06 bears and colts... and the frenzied free agent over spending this year is due to that comparison and the realization that those were horrible teams and maybe the worst 2 super bowl teams in history.i believe most teams feel that they have at least comparable talent and 1 or 2 players could put them over the top. heck player by player the packers arent that much worse than the bears.enjoy your time away from sports and try and use your time writing about something you enjoy your talent as a writer is undeniable (just not your knowledge of football...).

A: Cliff Christl - I can't imagine why anyone would read someone that they thought knew nothing or very little about the subject they were writing about. What a waste of time on your part! But if you thought Bart Starr should retain his job after nine years, a 52-76-3 record and a mere 13 victories over teams that finished with a winning record and just two against teams that finished with 10 wins or more, I can see why you never agreed with me. But thanks for giving me credit for running Bart Starr out of town. A lot of people still pay me that compliment around Green Bay, although I don't necessarily think it's deserved. I agree that I've had a great life and have a great family and have been fortunate to work for three or four newspapers for more than 35 years. I love the business and it still stirs my passion. I just don't love the Packers. They don't sign my check. They don't even like me being around some times, maybe all the time. I owe my loyalty to the Journal Sentinel, your football team. As for your expectations for next year, for the Packers, as I recently wrote, there's nothing wrong with pipedreams. And the Bears weren't a very good Super Bowl representative. They probably would have been if they hadn't lost one of their two best players before the game. But the best four teams played in the AFC. And I thought the Colts were as good as most Super Bowl champs. Peyton Manning is pretty special and I think one of the two best players in the game, along with Brady. And that's all most of the Super Bowl champs have had: One or two great players to win the games and a lot of good ones that didn't screw up and lose them. Anyway, now that I'm retiring, maybe you can chop off an hour or so of those 55 that you spend reading about pro football and get a life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: John of Indy - Wouldn't Thompson be better served pulling a Ditka and trading up to draft a Calvin Johnson or Adrian Peterson than standing pat @ #16 and/or bringing in Moss? PFW seems to be very high on both these players in their current draft book, claiming both have Hall of Fame potential and Johnson "can take the league by storm the way Randy Moss did and may threaten Jerry Rice's receiving records by the time he finishes playing football because of his exceptional football character." It seems that a bold move like this is the only real way Thompson will get a HOF-caliber player based on the fact that the Packers seem to have just enough talent to avoid a 2-14 season. Also, will you be allowed to nominate a replacement on the Hall of Fame selection committee? Thanks and best of luck!

A: Cliff Christl - I don't have the value of all the Packers' picks in front of me, but I don't think they add up to the 3,000 that the No. 1 pick is worth. So if Johnson goes No. 1, he's probably still out of reach even if Thompson offers all of his picks. If Peterson slips, maybe they could swing a deal and I think it would be worth consideration. The Packers have a lot of good players; they need someone special. But, remember, the odds of any pick from No. 5 on down of becoming a Pro Bowl player are less than 50%. And if Peterson slips to that point, it will tell you that scouts have at least some reservations about him. I don't care what a team needs, it won't pass on the last potentially great player on the board. And even the best of drafts don't usually produce more than about three great players.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: terry Chaney of Royal Oak, Michigan - Did any of the tight ends currently on the roster do anything that you remember in watching them practice last year? I remember hearing that they were going to get worked in toward the end of last year but don't remember anyone catching a pass. Have lots of fun on the bike!!!

A: Cliff Christl - Tory Humphrey is a good athlete and will make some catches in practice that raise your eyebrows. But there has been no consistency there and there also has been some history of injury. Zac Alcorn is a blue-collar player, maybe with more speed than meets the eye. Could they be good players? There's a chance. But there's no proven tight end on the roster other than Bubba, if you're going to count him. That said, you can count the number of really good tight ends in the league on about one hand: Gates, Gonzales, Shockley, Crumpler, maybe Heap and maybe Winslow is getting close.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: James of Brookfield, WI - Hey Cliff - question regarding free agency again. I understand your and the Packers viewpoints on free agency and why overpay for someone who is not that good. However the Packers have over 20 million in cap room - NFL rules state that all teams must use at least 85 percent of their salary cap - the Packers are waaay under that at this point. Sure they can use the money to lock up Barnett and Corey Williams to new deals but thats still going to leave them short of the 85 percent even after draft choices. So why not spend a little of it on useful players Justin Griffith is not a great player but he's better than what we have - and he didn't get a big contract at all. I'd much rather take him at 3 years younger & familiar with the Packers system than some soon to be 30 year old fullback from the Browns. Your thoughts on where the Packers are going to use the rest of this $ - there are not many guys worth locking up to new deals on the current roster.

A: Cliff Christl - I just don't think you ever want to overpay for a player. Don't overlook this: Players in that locker room know what other players are worth. And I'll guarantee that if somebody is being overpaid someone else is going to be unhappy that they're not getting as much or more. Maybe that's another reason why free agency backfires. It gets players grumbling about money and not concentrating on football. Justin Griffith is a good fullback. But that would be like saying someone is a good apple-picker. You know how many good apple-pickers you could probably find? Proportionately, you could probably find about the same number of good fullbacks. Again, it's March. Training camp doesn't start until July. Last year Thompson had money left and went after Woodson and Arrington. Maybe that's his plan this year. To go after Moss or to try and trade for Turner or do something else late. So why nickle-and-dime away your cap number on a fullback, who might play 30 to 40% of the offensive plays, which is about a half of all the plays in the game. Do you own a business? I don't mean to be a smart aleck. But would you pay a janitor twice the going rate just because you had money to spend? Remember pro football is a business, first and foremost, and I think the good teams are guided by the same business principles as successful companies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: steve plotkin of henderson nv - I've enjoyed rubbing elbows and bumping heads with you over the years, you've stimulated your readers well! Cliff, with more information available than ever before on players via the internet, Tv and radio the draft is becoming the football junkies survival kit until preseason comes back around. That being said I have my own version of what the Packers need. Initiate a trade with Dallas, Julius Jones to GB and we flip flop 1st round picks. Dallas can get a better DB and we get an experienced RB. TE is the most serious need and the Pack red zone offense was a disaster. Greg Olsen would create a weapon for Brett in the red zone and should still be available at the 22nd slot. There are way to many good wideouts in this draft to let one get away in the second round. Smith of USC, Gonzalez of Ohio State and Hill of Wash State could be available for the Pack to pick up. In the third round they should take a Running back. With the Packers zone blocking scheme Hunt of Penn State, Pittman of OSU and Bush of Louisville would be a nice fit. In round 4 I take a QB, Beck of BYU or Edwards of Stanford whomever is available with that selection. I know safety is a primary need for this team but you can't get everything in one draft, it's time to build up the offense first. So for the last time, what do you think?

A: Cliff Christl - Sorry, I don't have that kind of insight. And what's that saying "about the best laid plans...?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tim of Batavia - Cliff, I enjoyed your article about the Redskins and the correlation to today's Packers. Since I am in an optimistic mood - I am going more towards the thought process that our young players are going to step up and turn from young and promising into young and solid, or from young and solid into young and really good. Am I looking at things thru rose colored glasses?

A: Cliff Christl - Really good won't cut it. They need someone to step up to the point where he can take over games and win them at crunch time; players with the ability to dominate. Do you see any candidates?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Rich of La - Hey Cliff you old goat, it looks like your old buddy Matt Millen outlasted you. You get the last laugh because you won't be around to take all the ridicule when he gets fired. But, congrats on your retirement. You will be missed. In a chat last spring I remember you predicting,"the Bears could go to the Super Bowl." What's your early prediction on the Packers for this coming season?

A: Cliff Christl - You know, they said the same things about Mike Brown that they did about Matt Millen. Then, the Bengals started winning --- I understand they shifted some authority to Lewis -- and you don't hear a peep out of the Mike Brown critics. I know the Bengals have a lot of issues right now, but I still think they would have won the Super Bowl in '05 if Carson Palmer hadn't been hurt against the Steelers. Anyway, an early prediction on the Packers? 8-8 at best, but probably more like 6-10. And if they trade for Moss? 8-8 at best. But I want to qualify that: If they hit the jackpot with their No. 1 draft pick, I might change my mind as soon as that became evident in training camp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Charley Boynton of Fox Point - Much has been made of the loss of Ahman Green to the Texans in free agency and the general lack of depth at wide receiver. But what could be even more devastating is the loss of David Martin to free agency and Ted Thompson's seeming lack of interest to pursue a quality tight end in free agency. Randy McMichael, Daniel Graham and Eric Johnson all would have been great additions that could have stretched the opponent's defenses and give Favre a big target in the middle of the field. Favre had his best seasons when Mark Chumura or Bubba Franks were on the top of their games. Instead the Packers are stuck with a clearly declining and possibly done Franks, Donald Lee and a bunch of scrubs. This year's draft class also is particularly weak at the Tight End position, one year after the Packers passed on Vernon Davis who possessed freakish natural abilities. Do you think that the way Thompson has handled the Tight End position can be explained by the fact that he inexplainable gave Franks a 7 year $28 million deal as one of his first moves as GM? Is he just unwilling to admit he made a huge mistake? How do you see this position shaking out by the time the season starts? Is Lee ready to start?

A: Cliff Christl - McMichael, Graham and Johnson would not have been great additions because they're not great players. They're good and maybe better than what the Packers have, but not by much. I agree that Martin was their best weapon at tight end last year when he was on the field. But that hasn't been very often. Time will tell on the decision to take Hawk over Davis. But most teams are playing with nothing more than a serviceable tight end. The Bears and Colts got to the Super Bowl with tight ends who fall into that category, although Dallas Clark might be on the high end of the good range. Also, there are still some serviceable tight ends available. Jerramy Stevens has some issues, but he has more ability than any of the tight ends you mentioned. You never know. As I noted, Humphrey or Alcorn could blossom. I wouldn't bet on it. But Humphrey is as talented as Martin; he just doesn't have any experience and has been even less consistent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jim of toledo , ohio - Hi Chris Thank's for taking my question i've heard adam archuleta is being shopped around by washington for a mid round pick , he was a very good player with the rams i think he'dd be a great pick up what do you think ? Let's trade for Moss already sure he's no angel but he's not the devil either i bet we got guys just as bad already here we need some weapon's on offense right now....Jenning's ok but really fell off as the season went on he's a good 2nd receiver TT waits and waits how much more is it going to cost signing Barrent for instance then signing him before free agency started the money thrown around only upped the ante

A: Cliff Christl - The Bears signed Archuleta and he might help them now that he's back playing in Lovie Smith's cover two scheme. But Archuleta couldn't play in the Redskins' scheme. And that means he probably couldn't have played in the Packers' scheme. That's another thing you have to remember about free agency. Most great players could play in any system: Players like Favre, Reggie White, Butler. But most of the others need to fit a system or they aren't going to be effective. That's another reason why it's stupid for anyone to conclude some free agent would be a great addition to a certain team or to lament the loss of some other free agent. That's why teams have scouts who study players for 10, 12, 15 hours a day: Not only to judge their ability, but to determine what kind of fit they'd be on their particular teams. And even when scouts have first-hand knowledge of players, they make mistakes. Marquand Manuel might be a good player, but he certainly appeared to be a poor fit in the Packers' scheme. And you don't change schemes for a Marquand Manuel. Keep in mind, too, that that rule about getting a good fit pretty much applies to every position on the field.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeremy Schulthess of Milwaukee - Hi Cliff. In response to your, "presenting the evidence" article, in which I totally agree, you forgot to mention that even though Wolf traded a first round pick for Favre he said that he thought Favre was the best player in the draft and had the Falcons not used their 2nd round pick on him just before the Jets he would have drafted Favre. The reason he never was able to is that the Jets did not have a first round pick otherwise it would be quite possible that Favre would have been a Jet. Also in regards to next months draft assuming there are 4 players available that you have in an equal spot for your first pick, a safety, a running back, a tight end, and a wide receiver, and you are Thompson which position would you address?

A: Cliff Christl - You're absolutely correct about Wolf and Favre. That just shows how different scouts view different players from different perspectives. Hasn't Wolf said that he had Favre rated the No. 1 player in the draft? And where did Favre go? 33. Not necessarily you Jeremy, but people should keep that in mind on draft day if the Packers' pick someone that the draftniks rated much lower. Dick Haley, the longtime personnel guy in Pittsburgh and New York, told me that one of his scouts, former Packer scout Jesse Kaye, had Tom Brady rated well above a sixth-round draft pick. But the Jets took Chad Pennington in the first round, so they forgot about Brady. But some people saw all that talent in Brady. As for what the Packers should draft? Again, I think it would be a mistake on their part to draft for need. But, obviously, running back is their most pressing need. Keep in mind that a running back is going to get a lot more touches than a wide receiver or tight end.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff of Mercer, Wi - hi Cliff...........I've been reading with interest your theories on playmakers and how winning teams generally have one or two of the top 10 - 15 players in the game on their rosters.....most of the time these players are drafted, occasionally traded for, once in a great while acquired through free agency......a common thread in all of this is a GM or coach who head the brains, luck, and or guts to draft, trade, or sign one of these guys...........my question to you is: do you think, from what you've observed, that Ted Thompson has the stones to make the big bold move, and bring a big time player to GB? or is he too much of a "play it safe" kind of guy to get a team over the hump?......understand, I'm not being critical, in fact I agree with most of what he has done so far, just trying to get a handle on whether you think he can ultimately succeed, or just get the Packers back to .500 and no more..........enjoy your retirement, we're all going to miss you out here.....

A: Cliff Christl - Great question. I think Thompson is more conservative than Wolf. Plus, he was part of putting that Seattle team together without making any big, bold moves. But, then again, the Seahawks haven't won a Super Bowl and time might be running out with Alexander and Jones getting up in years. I think Thompson would be willing to take a chance. But the opportunity to trade for a Favre was a once in a lifetime thing. It might just be that Thompson will never get a chance to do something like that. I'm scrambling here for an answer and I don't think I'm doing a very good job. I think hard work pays off and Thompson, from everything I've heard, works hard. I'm sure hard work played a part in the Patriots drafting Brady and the Broncos drafting Terrell Davis. So did luck. But some scout somewhere saw something in those two players that others didn't. As you look back, you wonder why it wasn't obvious to everyone. Brady is one of the best two or three quarterbacks of the last decade. I think Davis was one of the best running backs. I don't buy that system stuff. The Broncos might churn out 1,000-yard rushers, but they won two Super Bowls because Davis was more special than that. The Packers couldn't tackle him. He won SB XXXII. And, again, wasn't it John Dorsey who tried to sell Wolf on Davis? So there was at least one scout who saw the talent there, as well. Sorry about the incoherent answer. But we'll end the chat here: On a better question than answer.

BACK TO

Football Fan
03-27-2007, 01:31 AM
Thompson has to try something brash at some point
Posted: March 20, 2007


Cliff Christl
E-MAIL

Before Brett Favre ever played a down with the Green Bay Packers, the mere act of trading for him marked a watershed moment in the franchise's history.

It was a bold and daring act unlike anything the Packers had done for 20 years or more. By trading a first-round draft pick for a loose-canon quarterback who had been chosen in the second round the year before and done nothing to increase his value, former general manager Ron Wolf not only staked his future on the deal, but jolted the Packers out of a perpetual state of organizational inertia.

Under Tom Braatz, who ran the team's draft for five years before Wolf, there was some progress made on the personnel front. Braatz missed big on Tony Mandarich, but also drafted Sterling Sharpe in the first round, LeRoy Butler in the second and Don Majkowski in the 10th, just to name a few. In Braatz's last draft, he snagged Tony Bennett, Butler, Jackie Harris and Bryce Paup, an impressive catch all in one year.

Packers/NFL


Photo/Jeffrey Phelps

Ron Wolf made daring moves during his tenure, acquiring Keith Jackson and Brett Favre.

Related Coverage
Visit: Fullback leaves without pact

Packer Insider
Chat: Cliff Christl, Wednesday at noon
Christl: Thompson has to try something brash at some point

Packers Etc.
'07 Opponents
'07 Roster
'07 Draft Order
'07 Draft Picks
'07 Cap Figures
'06 Results
'06 Depth
'06 Statistics
'06 Rookie Pay
'06 Draft Section

NFL Basics
Standings
Statistics
Scoreboard
'07 Draft Order
'07 Calendar
'06 Draft Review
Player index
Team pages
Injuries
Movements

Packer Insider

SIGN-UP: Subscribe to Packer Insider for exclusive online insights and analysis.
Packer Forum
Got something to get off your chest? Voice your opinion and interact with other fans in our free Packer Forum.
Go to Forum

Advertisement


Buy a link hereBraatz had played in the NFL for four years and had spent more than 20 years working in Atlanta's personnel department. He had an eye for talent and also had drafted well for the Falcons, hitting the jackpot on the likes of quarterback Steve Bartkowski, tight end Junior Miller, offensive linemen Bill Fralic and Mike Kenn, and running backs Gerald Riggs and William Andrews, among others.

A perennial also-ran for the first 12 years of their existence, the Falcons made the playoffs three times in a five-year period from 1978-'82 thanks in large part to players that Braatz targeted in the draft. In 1980, the Falcons were young, talented and the No. 1 seed in the NFC playoffs, only to get bumped by Dallas, 30-27, in the divisional playoffs.

And, thereafter, the Falcons just never got over the hump.

A native of Wisconsin, Braatz was conservative by nature and it was reflected in how he ran a franchise. Both in Atlanta and Green Bay, he adhered to a by-the-book, build-through-the-draft philosophy.

In theory, it's the only philosophy that has ever been truly successful in the NFL since the draft came into being in 1936. That said, it's still necessary to deviate from the norm and take some chances on occasion. In other words, a team just can't build through the draft alone.

Former Dallas coach Jimmy Johnson once compared the playoffs to poker. "You can not play with scared money," he said. "You play with scared money, you lose."

The same applies to stocking a roster. Sometimes a general manager just has to try something brash. And if it means flying in the face of his own blueprint, so be it.

Wolf did it at least twice. One was the Favre trade; the other was the Keith Jackson trade. Wolf relinquished a second-round draft pick for Jackson, who said he would rather retire than play in Green Bay and sat out three months before he finally reported. Favre led the Packers to 13 straight non-losing seasons and their first Super Bowl victory in 29 years. And the Packers won Super Bowl XXXI in Jackson's only full season with the team, which might have been more than just a coincidence.

Now might not be the time. Randy Moss might not be the player. And free agency might never be the solution.

But at some point in the not too distant future, Thompson might have to target a particular player or two and go for broke.

He's entering his third season as general manager and has done a good job of improving the infrastructure of his roster. But that alone won't be enough to win a Super Bowl.

Most Super Bowl champions started their uphill climb after years of losing or after hitting rock bottom.

The fortunes of the reigning champion Indianapolis Colts turned around after back-to-back 3-13 seasons in 1997 and '98, the first of which yielded Peyton Manning in the draft. The Dallas Cowboys won three Super Bowls in the 1990s after finishing 3-13 in 1988 and 1-15 in 1999, and drafting Troy Aikman and Emmitt Smith. It was a 4-12 finish by the New York Giants in 1980 that allowed them to draft Lawrence Taylor and a 3-12-1 finish three years later that led to the selection of fellow linebacker Carl Banks, two moves that helped propel them to Super Bowl victories in 1986 and 1990.

Before winning three Super Bowls in the 1980s, the San Francisco 49ers finished 2-14 in both 1978 and '79. They wasted their No. 1 picks both years, but also uncovered Joe Montana and five solid starters in the two drafts that followed those dismal seasons. The Pittsburgh Steelers finished 1-13 in 1969 and took quarterback Terry Bradshaw No. 1 in the following draft. Bradshaw led them to four Super Bowl titles over the next decade.

The 2002 Super Bowl champion Tampa Bay Buccaneers were just six years removed from the last of a string of 14 consecutive losing seasons. The 2000 Baltimore Ravens had suffered through four straight losing seasons and five more in their last six years in Cleveland before moving. The 1999 St. Louis Rams won the Super Bowl after nine straight losing years, including six in which they won five or fewer games.

The 1996 Packers started their climb four years earlier following a 24-year drought during which they had only five winning seasons. The 1966 and '67 Packers, winners of the first two Super Bowls, still had five key starters, including three Hall of Famers, who were drafted during another of the franchise's dreadful droughts in the 1950s.

There have been a handful of Super Bowl winners that never sank to the depths of the teams mentioned above, but even most of those benefited from a down year and a high draft pick.

The 2005 Steelers finished 6-10 two years earlier and drafted quarterback Ben Roethlisberger. The New England Patriots, winners of three Super Bowls since 2001, finished 5-11 in 2000 and selected Richard Seymour, their best defensive player during that span, with the sixth pick.

On the flip side, teams that don't sink to the cellar or experience years of losing often get stuck in ruts where they become perpetually mediocre.

The Philadelphia Eagles have finished with a winning record in 17 of the last 29 seasons, but haven't won a Super Bowl. True, they fell to 3-13 in 1998 and benefited from drafting Donovan McNabb. But that was one of only two times in the last 11 years that they've had a top 10 draft pick.

The New York Jets last won a Super Bowl following the 1968 season. In the 27 years that the NFL has played a 16-game schedule, dating to 1978 minus two strike-shortened years, the Jets have won between six and 10 games 19 times. The Kansas City Chiefs last won a Super Bowl following the 1969 season. They've won between six and 10 games 20 times in the years of a 16-game schedule.

Both the Jets and Chiefs have had some talented players and also their share of high draft picks. But it's probably instructive that each team has drafted a quarterback in the top 10 only once in more than 35 years.

The Chiefs took Todd Blackledge seventh in 1983; the Jets chose Richard Todd sixth in 1976. Blackledge was a bust; Todd had two good years out of six as a starter.

Should the Packers continue to hover between six and 10 wins and not get another crack or two at the top one to maybe five draft picks, Thompson, in all likelihood, is either going to have to be extremely lucky or gamble on some blockbuster move.

Should he choose to do so, it won't guarantee success. The Eagles learned that in 2004 when they traded for the league's biggest pain in the you-know-what, Terrell Owens, and spent lavishly to sign free agent Jevon Kearse, although they did come a step closer to winning the Super Bowl.

And let's face it, Wolf was daring but also lucky when he traded for Favre. How many times in league history has a young quarterback with that kind of raw talent ever been available?

Thompson doesn't figure to be so lucky. But it also doesn't figure that he can play it safe and only by-the-book year after year and expect to succeed.

Football Fan
03-27-2007, 01:40 AM
I have more of these so if you all like reading this stuff I will post them. It cost me 6 bucks so I figured I would share it if you want to see it. Not much happening at this time with the pack so what the hell.

Football Fan
03-27-2007, 01:43 AM
Looks like I needed to edit some of it but oh well.

Football Fan
03-27-2007, 02:51 AM
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=582302

Football Fan
03-27-2007, 03:00 AM
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=582302
Well there is some evidence on what the coach feels about rodgers.

princefielder28
03-27-2007, 06:43 AM
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=582302

He's got to make Rodgers still feel like a part of the team following all the rumors

umphrey
03-27-2007, 07:46 AM
Stupid article above. Prime example of a journalist having nothing to write about so he just tries to get the fans upset about something to gain readers.

Favre4
03-27-2007, 09:42 AM
hey guys im in gulf shores on spring break right now. any new news about the pack? hope i didnt miss anything. thanks for any reply

neko4
03-27-2007, 10:47 AM
hey guys im in gulf shores on spring break right now. any new news about the pack? hope i didnt miss anything. thanks for any reply

nope not much, just rumors

M1Koter
03-27-2007, 11:29 AM
hey guys im in gulf shores on spring break right now. any new news about the pack? hope i didnt miss anything. thanks for any reply

wait, you didn't hear yet, oh yeah, well funny thing happend in Green Bay... no I'm just kidding, nothin at all, still only 1 FA signed, Moss is said he is happy on becoming a packer yata yata yata, nothin new, Rodgers is happy to be back in Cali. nothin new

princefielder28
03-27-2007, 02:09 PM
wait, you didn't hear yet, oh yeah, well funny thing happend in Green Bay... no I'm just kidding, nothin at all, still only 1 FA signed, Moss is said he is happy on becoming a packer yata yata yata, nothin new, Rodgers is happy to be back in Cali. nothin new

There's absolutely nothing to say.

Football Fan
03-27-2007, 02:24 PM
Stupid article above. Prime example of a journalist having nothing to write about so he just tries to get the fans upset about something to gain readers.
Not really, the guy has been covering football and the packers for like 40 years. He is retiring this year and could care less about writing stupid crap to get attention. He simply speaks his mind whicj is why I like to read his opinions. He has always been that way. He is a straight talker, with loads of experience.

JF4
03-27-2007, 03:09 PM
Come on guys, we did resign star TE Tory Humphrey a few days back. If that isn't news worthy than I don't know what is.

princefielder28
03-27-2007, 03:16 PM
Come on guys, we did resign star TE Tory Humphrey a few days back. If that isn't news worthy than I don't know what is.

It's about as newsworthy as anything has become for the Pack

neko4
03-27-2007, 07:37 PM
Game update
QB-Brett Favre, Aaron Rodgers, Ingle Martin
HB-Vernand Morency, Tony Hunt, Noah Herron(goallineback), Tony Fisher(pass-catcher)
FB-William Henderson, Brandon Miree
WR-Donald Driver, Randy Moss, Greg Jennings, Rod Smith, Koren Robinson(KR/PR), Carlyle Holiday
TE-Alge Crumpler, Bubba Franks, Matt Spaeth
OT-Chad Clifton, Mark Tauscher, Tony Moll, Tony Palmer
OG-Daryn Colldge, Jason Spitz, Junius Coston, Dan Santucci
C- Scott Wells,Tyson Walter
DE-Aaron Kampman,Cullen Jenkins, Michael Montgomery, Jason Hunter
DT-Ryan Pickett, Colin Cole, Dan Klecko, Johnny Jolly
OLB-AJ Hawk, Justin Durant, Brady Poppinga, Tracy White, Kurt Campbell
ILB-Nick Barnett, Abdul Hodge
CB-Al Harris, Charles Woodson, Frank Walker, Patrick Dendy, Jarrett Bush, Will
Blackmon,Travarous Bain
FS-Nick Collins, Atari Bigby, Charlie Peprah
SS-Sabby Piscitelli,Marviel Underwood, Tyrone Culver
K-Dave Rayner
P-Jon Ryan
LS-Rob Davis
UFA's
Ben Taylor OLB
Todd Bouman QB
Trade Block
Patrick Dendy7th
Aquisitions:Randy Moss,William Henderson,Dan Klecko,Rod Smith,Alge Crumpler,Tony Fisher
Losses: Kevin Barry,Robert Ferguson,Ruvell Martin, Donald Lee, Marquand Manuel,KGB
Draft Picks
2nd 15th Tony Hunt
2rd 16th Justin Durant
2rd 22nd Sabby Piscitelli
4rd 16th Travarous Bain
5th 11th Matt Spaeth
5th 21th Dan Santucci
7th 15th
7rd 19th
7rd 25th

princefielder28
03-27-2007, 07:39 PM
neko, the Raiders will take you down! :)

neko4
03-27-2007, 07:44 PM
neko, the Raiders will take you down! :)

Brady Quinn behind that O-Line...

princefielder28
03-27-2007, 07:55 PM
Brady Quinn behind that O-Line...

My O-Line is changed big time

My Offense:

QB- brady Quinn
RB- Marshawn Lynch
FB- Justin Griffith
WR- Chris Chambers
WR- Michael Clayton, Antonio Bryant
TE- Joe Newton
LT- Jeff Backus
LG- Dan Buenning
C- Jake Grove
RG- Kendall Simmons
RT- Robert Gallery

GB12
03-27-2007, 10:43 PM
Drowe!!!!!!

JF4
03-27-2007, 10:46 PM
Drowe!!!!!!

Where??? I haven't seen him around in ages.

GB12
03-27-2007, 10:48 PM
Where??? I haven't seen him around in ages.
I know, I'm calling for him. I want him to come back.

TitleTown088
03-27-2007, 11:26 PM
Well abdul Hodge and Robert Ferguson changed their numbers to 52 and 87..... there's some packer excitment for ya.

GB12
03-27-2007, 11:28 PM
Well abdul Hodge and Robert Ferguson changed their numbers to 52 and 87..... there's some packer excitment for ya.

I like 52 for Hodge, Ferguson should have stayed with 89 though.

neko4
03-27-2007, 11:31 PM
Well abdul Hodge and Robert Ferguson changed their numbers to 52 and 87..... there's some packer excitment for ya.

woo, wee, ooo, aaa! 89 is the worst possible number for a WR, they should make it a DL number. There are players who claimed they did better when they ditched the 89. "its too heavy," many said

Football Fan
03-28-2007, 01:33 AM
He's got to make Rodgers still feel like a part of the team following all the rumors
Yeah, you still really dont know the true situation until he plays or the packers make a move of some kind

Football Fan
03-28-2007, 01:36 AM
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=583469

neko4
03-28-2007, 02:13 AM
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=583469

Darrell Jackson...ugh

johbur
03-28-2007, 03:36 AM
For right now, I think TT has enough players to wait for the draft and see which veterans are going to get cut due to draft picks coming on board. I wouldn't have minded seeing David Carr come on board though and competing for the back-up behind Favre. That'd make the QB position pretty solid.

M1Koter
03-28-2007, 06:46 AM
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=583469

the only one I'm interested in is Turner and I think there is too much we would have to give up to get him

princefielder28
03-28-2007, 06:51 AM
Well abdul Hodge and Robert Ferguson changed their numbers to 52 and 87..... there's some packer excitment for ya.

Ferguson shouldn't have Brooks' number

JF4
03-28-2007, 09:35 AM
I really can't forsee any trade happening untill very close to the draft or on draft day. TT mentioned in that article that he has a tendency to wait untill the draft to make trades and I wouldn't expect anything different this year.

ds8582
03-28-2007, 09:47 AM
I'd give up a 2nd rounder for Turner or swap 1st rounders.

TitleTown088
03-28-2007, 12:37 PM
I really can't forsee any trade happening untill very close to the draft or on draft day. TT mentioned in that article that he has a tendency to wait untill the draft to make trades and I wouldn't expect anything different this year. Yeah, me either. However, for some reason I think Teddy is going to make a bold move somehow around draft day. Just a hunch, or maybe a dream..

da-giez
03-28-2007, 12:56 PM
Well he knows he has to otherwise Green Bay will RIOT! Or i will, he knows that the Packer fans are getting impatient with him this off seasonand he knows he has to do somethin to improve this team beside just drafting some guys.

Like if he gets Turner, thats huge for us fans and he get off his back a little, he just has to make 1 big bold move that will give us somethin look foward 2.

GadoR'Savior again

princefielder28
03-28-2007, 02:06 PM
Well he knows he has to otherwise Green Bay will RIOT! Or i will, he knows that the Packer fans are getting impatient with him this off seasonand he knows he has to do somethin to improve this team beside just drafting some guys.

Like if he gets Turner, thats huge for us fans and he get off his back a little, he just has to make 1 big bold move that will give us somethin look foward 2.

GadoR'Savior again

He'll make a move and it'll be at his price; if a team is looking to move a player and TT will only give up so much, come draft time the team will be desperate to get rid of a player and the Packers have themselves a new player

TitleTown088
03-28-2007, 04:51 PM
Who needs moss?????
http://www.packersnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070328/PKR01/70328148/1989

GB12
03-28-2007, 04:53 PM
Who needs moss?????
http://www.packersnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070328/PKR01/70328148/1989

LMAO, seriously I'm cracking up at my computer.

neko4
03-28-2007, 06:51 PM
Who needs moss?????
http://www.packersnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070328/PKR01/70328148/1989

ever since Donovan Darius came a long and close lined him...:(

princefielder28
03-28-2007, 06:52 PM
ever since Donovan Darius came a long and close lined him...:(

Ferguson, in my eyes, was never going to be much regardless of the unfortunate injury he sustained. He does have the speed to get past people and he doesn't make people miss either

JF4
03-28-2007, 06:57 PM
I always thought he'd amount to a pretty good 3rd WR. I guess kind of like what Brandon Stokely is right now. The injury really set him back and I don't envision him having any impact next year.

M1Koter
03-28-2007, 07:02 PM
ever since Donovan Darius came a long and close lined him...:(

I honestly think he'd be a lot better player and possibly our #2 last year if it wasn't for that

jpapa4490
03-28-2007, 08:39 PM
I was really high on Ferguson until Darius's attempt(to go after the ball) went wrong, but if MM thinks Fergy can do something for this team I am inclined to believe him because it seems like he know's his team in and out more then other football coaches.

Favre4
03-28-2007, 08:56 PM
fergy was never very consistent, and thats why ive never been a big fan of him. maybe since he changed his number to 87, he will be a little faster....after all that is a lighter number by jersey weight.

koren robinson couldnt come back fast enough right about now.

jackalope
03-28-2007, 09:38 PM
Ferguson should be out number 4 receiver at most. Definitely not 2 or 3.

Football Fan
03-29-2007, 03:00 AM
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=583483

Football Fan
03-29-2007, 03:04 AM
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=583950

ds8582
03-29-2007, 05:58 PM
I was really high on Ferguson until Darius's attempt(to go after the ball) went wrong, but if MM thinks Fergy can do something for this team I am inclined to believe him because it seems like he know's his team in and out more then other football coaches.

He did talk about him playing special teams a lot though.

Football Fan
03-30-2007, 02:45 AM
THURSDAY, March 29, chat transcript
Cliff Christl
Packer Insider columnist

On the eve of his retirement, Cliff Christl answered your questions in his final regular Packer Insider chat (we'll try to get him back occasionally as a guest chatter, but this is it from him for now). ALSO: Post your farewell message to Cliff in our online forum



Q: Dan of Lowville, NY - Mr. Christl, it seems to me, from afar, that Mr. Bob Harlan is one of the most decent, admirable individuals if football. Do you agree, and whom would you add to that list, among the coaches, players, and executives you have known (or covered)over the years?

A: Cliff Christl - Dan, you posted first. We'll stick with tradition and start with you. In my eyes, the ideal person to interview is someone who is honest, first and foremost; informative and willing to speak on-the-record; and understanding that some situations require tough questions. It would be hard to beat Bob Harlan on all three points. Tom Braatz was much like that. Sometimes with Ron Wolf, there was considerable give and take, but he was usually a good interview. Dick Corrick was alwyas cooperative. I always enjoyed talking to Dave Hanner and the late Red Cochran, who might have had the longest tenure in the Packers' football operations. They were gruff, old school, shot from the hip and didn't care if they offended anyone, and they almost always were extremely insightful. Of all the assistant coaches, Tom Lovat probably was as blunt as anyone. Remember that quote about John Michels and his sympathy pains or whatever it was?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: denis of hot springs arkansas - hi cliff..although i have read your work and chats on the net for quit some time now i have never posted a question. i am an avid packer fan in arkansas. thanks to the nfl ticket i have been able to watch all the games for several years now. i really have no question. i really don't know that much about the inside works of the game all i do is enjoy it throughly. i really just wanted to thank you for puting up with all the so called know it alls out there. you've been more than great...thank you

A: Cliff Christl - Thanks and I think most fans approach the game the way you do: They're attached to their team, want to learn as much as they can about it, and enjoy the games for the entertainment. On the other hand, there are other fans who start the "Fire so-and-so...," websites, think they know it all, rant and rave over the most innane matters, etc., etc. I hope they're in the minority. I think they certainly were among Packer Insider subscribers. Most of the questions that have been posted on these chats over the years were good questions. But back to those fans who have no sense of perspective, no sense of decency. Under the circumstances, I enjoyed taking shots at them -- hopefully some were haymakers that landed -- and loved to irritate them. I realize they were readers and I valued that. They contributed to my salary. So they weren't all bad. But I saw a sign in a bar in Fort Meyers, Fla., this winter that I think applies here: It read: "Some people call them customers. We call them obnoxious morons." Let's face it, probably between 90 and 99% of Packer fans are great fans. But there are some obnoxious morons in the crowd, as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: kwed of dubuque - Cliff, my arch nemesis, I wish you well. One last question-- you mentioned that you used to sit in the stadium and watch the packers as a kid--did you stand and cheer then? take care

A: Cliff Christl - No. I don't think I've ever cheered in my life at a sporting event. I've always just sat quietly and watched the game. After all, that's all it is: A game. Even as a kid I was a curious and avid spectator, but never loud or emotional or demonstrative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tim of Merced, CA - Two questions: 1. What will be your final act/duty as a reporter and 2. What will your be first act as a retiree? Enjoy, your retirement, you will be missed and not easily replaced.

A: Cliff Christl - 1) To hand in my tools of the trade -- sadly, it doesn't include a Smith Corona. 2) Have a couple beers with some co-workers and dinner with my wife.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Vince Cuilla of Millersville, MD - Cliff, Thanks for your honesty, insights and research through the years. With that said, do you think the Packers should consider signing David Carr to compete with Rogers? My guess is, the price is too high. Enjoy your retirement, but please come back for an occasional chat! Vince

A: Cliff Christl - No. Nobody is going to know for sure about Rodgers until he gets a chance to play. That's why I put little stock in the Moss for Rodgers trade rumors. You don't give up on a No. 1 draft pick without taking a long look at him in game situations. And before you give him that chance, you don't want to mess with his head. Do you put pressure on him to produce? Yes. But you don't sign some other iffy qb prospect in this situation just to create some bogus competition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tim of Batavia - Cliff, Best of luck, I know that you have touched on this a bit in the past but here goes. It's probably safe to assume that A Rodgers is not going to be one of the top QB's in the league, but where does he compare to say a Hasselbeck after two years. In the following categories, where does he(potentially) rank in comparison to say a Hasselbeck or a Jake Delhomme; Arm Strength, Accuracy, Mobility, Leadership abilities, overall Presence. Thanks for all your hard work over the years - and perhaps when you answer the question you should consider the expectation of replacing of legend with a (hopefully) very good QB - much like the MJS will do when they try and replace you with an average joe.

A: Cliff Christl - Excellent question. Hasselbeck didn't play at all for two years, then went through some trying times in Seattle. Quarterbacks develop at different rates and some never develop. I think there are some similarities between Hasselbeck and Rodgers maybe in terms of arm strength and being able to sidestep a rush. I don't think either one is at the high end of the chart. But they're not at the low end, either. I've never been that high on Delhomme. He strikes me as a marginal talent, but he seems to be an inspiring leader. I don't think that's enough, but that will be another test for Rodgers. Will the players believe in him and follow him? As Brett Favre's successor, it won't be easy earning that kind of respect and confidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: brad of highland park - Hi Cliff, I'd like to know how you'd rate Jim Carter in Packer LB history. He played on some bad teams during the Devine era. Also any memories of the NFL strike that I think Carter and Larry Hefner crossed. Thanks again Cliff for the great writing & chats. They will be missed.

A: Cliff Christl - Underrated. Better than Ray Nitschke when he replaced him and didn't deserve the abuse he received from fans. Carter was a Pro Bowl pick in 1973. As I recall, injuries affected him soon thereafter. He was just a good player and once he got some nicks, again, as I recall, his performance slipped, as it usually does with good players.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jamie E. of Milwaukee of thee Wisconsin - Cliff, farewell to you! I have to admit that it literally took YEARS for you to grow on me, but now that you're leaving, I can truly admit that your brand of objectivity has at least made me a critical thinking fan who tries to relate all of the facts, and then determine why sports teams win and lose. So I actually appreciate professional sports more because I am now able to see losing in winning (Packers consecutive winning seasons resulting in low draft picks), and winning in losing (getting rid of your better, but oldest, players or being able to land a franchise player within the top 5 picks). So I thank you, though my friends would curse you as they still make the intellectually arguments of "draft better players, sign better players, trade for better players, fire bad coaches, hire great coaches" without supporting their arguments with "what draft spot did they have, what coaches were available to hire, could they sign certain players under the salary cap, do they have any players of trade value they can afford to part with, ect." So thank you for all of your insight and critical thinking and I wish more reporters were as objective in their reporting of world events as you have been in sports. Oh what a world that'd be ;-)

A: Cliff Christl - Thanks, but I sure hope you don't tell anyone that my charm won you over.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Rob of San Jose, CA - Cliff, since this is the last chance I have to ask you -- you have said in previous chats that you were covering baseball in '89 and '90. Does that mean that while you were busy covering Molitor and Yount, you don't remember very much from Majkowski's "Majik" year? Or the instant replay game with the Bears? Or how Minnesota beat Cincy to knock us out off the playoffs on a Xmas Monday night game? Since you were following baseball that year, what did you think of Yount winning the MVP over Ruben Sierra? Thanks for all the chats and the great work over the years.

A: Cliff Christl - I covered the earthquake in San Francisco that year after it interrupted the World Series and then headed to Ireland on a bicycle trip. I also think I covered baseball's winter meetings. So I never saw the instant replay game and don't have much recollection of the Vikings-Bengals game. Sorry, but I don't remember if I voted for Yount or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff of Minneapolis - I strongly suspect that the Packers will find suitable replacements for Ahman Green, David Martin, and William Henderson. I'm not certain the JS Online will find a replacement anywhere approaching what a certain Cliff Christl brought to covering the Packers. As you leave, who are some of the football writers, Packers beat or not, who you particularly admire? Who can those of us fans turn to who will give us the type of analysis you provided instead of simply rah-rah homerism?

A: Cliff Christl - Boy, I really admire Tom Silverstein of our staff. I don't think there are many who work harder and maintain a higher standard of ethics than he does. I enjoy reading Peter King, Don Pierson. I don't get to read much of Rick Gosselin, but I'm impressed with his work ethic and knowledge when I'm around him. There are a lot of good people in this business and a lot of them bring much more talent to the table.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Terrence Murphy of Texas - Cliff, it may be early, but TT's first draft is leaning toward abysmal. Rodgers is likely another Harrington at best. A 5th, 6th and two 7th rd picks from that draft are gone after two years, and Coston and Montgomery may be on their way out this summer as well since they have showed little. That leaves Collins and Poppinga and maybe Underwood. Giving TT Underwood, that is 3 out of 11 picks. That must be worse than the league average. On top of that, no pro-bowlers in that bunch either. your thoughts

A: Cliff Christl - Fair question. But I think the jury is out on Rodgers and he's the key to the draft. The No. 1 pick always is. If they get three good players out of that draft, it's not a bad batting average. But I'm not sure they'll get three good players out of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: rich of Stillwater - Before you retire I thought I should disagree on a few points- by nature. 1. Star players alone won't win titles, Tom Brady is the best player in the league but if you surround him with "c" talent instead of "a" or "b" talent you'll lose. You have to attempt to continually upgrade your roster at each position. 2. Ted Thompson is one dimensional - the draft and that won't cut it. You have to upgrade your roster through the draft, free agency and trades. Seattle made it to the SB after Ted left and they were active in FA. Cheap Ted will improve the Packers but won't make the big splash you're talking about and will be his downfall. 3. It's too bad you're retiring, I always enjoyed reading your columns and blogs and your insights. Enjoy retirement.

A: Cliff Christl - Rich: What do you think Tom Brady played with last year? His receivers weren't even C talent. They were D-, at best and the Patriots came within a minute and a touchdown of probably winning the Super Bowl. Weren't the Colts the worst or one of the worst run defenses in the history of the league? That means they had several below-average players on that unit. Their guards weren't a whole lot better than Klemm and Whitticker. Yes, it's important to have good players. But the Patriots are about a 6-10 to 8-8 team without Brady and the Colts aren't even that without Manning. Why do you think a pedestrian running back like Dominic Rhodes ran crazy in the Super Bowl? Because the Bears are playing pass on basically every down. And why do you think that was? Did you ever play baseball? How many singles do you think you could have hit if the other team placed all eight of its fielders at the fence? There's some hyperbole there, but that's what the Bears were basically doing on defense in the Super Bowl. They were playing to avoid the home run by Manning and giving the Colts the nickel-and-dime stuff, including the run. And Manning was smart enough, patient enough and good enough to take advantage of it, although that meant his numbers weren't all that great. As for needing to build with more than just draft picks, I agree. But I think Thompson has made a point, just as Wolf did, of bringing in street free agents, etc., to see if they might be a good fit for the Packers or if someone made a mistake on them, etc. There aren't many trades anymore. And spending on free agency has backfired on most teams. I'd be willing to bet -- although I've done no research to support this -- that if you went back over the last 10 years, street free agents, guys signed off the scrapheap, or close to minimum contract UFAs have contributed almost as much as the players who received the big contracts. So just because Thompson isn't throwing around money on overpriced free agents doesn't mean he isn't on the lookout for players via other means than the draft.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Craig Danula of Camp Humphreys, Korea - Mr. Christl, I want to thank you for all you have done in covering the Green Bay Packers. You will be greatly missed. I'm wondering if you are going to be totally retired or will you grace us with one of your outstanding columns here and there? PLEASE come back once in a while to give us some Packer history. At the very least, please write some more books :) Thank you and God Bless.

A: Cliff Christl - I may try to write some books. But I'm just going to play it by ear for awhile.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Shunty Harvat of Chicago,IL - Cliff, what are the chances the Packers draft a QB in the first 3 rounds? If they do I'm assuming they are not 100% satisfied with the progress of Aaron Roders - would you agree?

A: Cliff Christl - I'd be surprised unless they really, really like somebody that falls in the first round. They'd be shooting at darts in the second and third rounds, and not getting anyone with any more talent than Rodgers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Barry Raab of Saint Simons Island Ga - Cliff - Best of Luck to you. i have enjoyed your work for many years. The one exception Is several years ago you responded to some one buy telling that person you didnt care what anyone thinks of you. I think we all know that everyone cares about SOMEONE! Quick question- Does Engle Martin have a future with the Packers in your opinion? Thanks again for all your hard work!!

A: Cliff Christl - We have thousands of subscribers for Packer Insider. There are millions of Packer fans. What are the odds they're all going to like me? Or that they'd all like you? So why care? As I've written before, I probably wouldn't like them either. I engage in a lot of locker room humor with my friends. I enjoy the give-and-take and I'm willing to take their best shots. Otherwise, I think I treat 99% of the people I meet with politeness and sincerity. But if I don't like someone, I let them know it. Time is too valuable to deal with people who are a pain in the butt. And sometimes the only way to get rid of them is to tell them that. Mike McCarthy has said he sees some potential in Martin. He knows way more about quarterbacks than I do. I didn't see much in Martin in training camp that impressed me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Chris Ison of Plymouth, Minn. - Cliff, As a longtime reporter and editor (currently journalism professor) I hate to see you go. I liked the reporting your brought to your work. And if I remember the old Press Gazette days correctly, you had one of the best column titles ever: Cliff's Christl Ball, right? Question: Have you seen any trends in sports reporting that bother you? Emphasis on writing over reporting, rah-rah coverage, etc? Thanks.

A: Cliff Christl - I think too many reporters feel they have to be buddies to develop sources. I almost never spoke to a player about anything other than football and the story that I was working on. Never wanted to be their friends. I think that's a mistake.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Digger of Andover - Cliff; You have no insight. You're theories are unfounded. Your hypotheses are groundless. You have poor vocabulary and suspect personal hygiene habits. Your "superstar" theory is no more than an statement of the obvious. You still have Shermy on your Christmas card list. Your writing is banal and occasionally bullying. However, you are[excepting Lea Remme] the undisputed authority on Packer History, the city of Green Bay, and roadside dining. You've made it more fun to be a Packer fan and forced everyone of us proudly residing on the fringe to think a little more before spewing off at the mouth. Thanks for everything and good luck.

A: Cliff Christl - I'm not sure if I should interpret that as brutal honesty or otherwise. But I guess it doesn't matter; it's worth posting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: RH of TT - Cliff- So long. It can't be easy leaving after a long career. My question is this. Reading the article on McCarthy on Favre, he spoke on the fact that he had max protection a lot to help the O-line. Did this fact actually make the line seem better than it was and if so will this same group of players be better this year so the max protect calls won't have to happen. I wonder if the line wasn't as good as most people assumed.

A: Cliff Christl - Good question. With Favre, it's tough to get a reading on their offensive line, even back when they had Rivera, Wahle, etc. Favre gets rid of the ball so quickly that it's almost impossible to sack him without a blindside blitz or a complete breakdown. And even then, the Packers kept in tight ends and backs to help last year because they had to. I just don't think Colledge and Spitz were experienced enough or strong enough to hold people out for any length of time. Plus, Moll played a lot at tackle. So all that max protection was done to help those rookie linemen. But what you had to like about them was that they had some talent, some toughness and they kept getting better. The key is: Will they continue to get better? There are no guarantees, but I'd be surprised if Spitz and Colledge don't become good players. And that's all they have to be. The Packers haven't had a great offensive lineman in almost 30 years. Gale Gillingham was the last. But they've had a lot of good ones and some good lines. And that's all most teams have. I remember the Ravens had Jonathan Ogden and the Rams had Pace. But I don't think there has been a Super Bowl winner since maybe Dallas in the early '90s that had a dominant line.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bill Mueller of Egg Harbor, Wisconsin - It seems like yesterday myself, when as a high school history teacher, I had a bright outspoken sophomore at Green Bay East High. The Greeks, Romans and Men of Troy couldn't hold your interest, but in 1962 - 63, George Wallace and Charles "Sonny" Liston did. One of the best sporting events we were part of was when the East High varsity basketball team fell to the squad made up of players who were cut. As the winning coach of that sqaud, I never forgot how David beat Golliath, and I'm glad cliff, the leading scorer of that game never did either. As a person who has overcome many odds and succeeded, what's your best David versus Golliath sporting event that you covered in you career? P.S. Your honesty and candor is always appreciated, so I'm changing you grade from a "C" minus to a "B" plus. Good luck, long live Chuck Taylor basketball shoes.

A: Cliff Christl - One of the few teachers who liked me! First I want to make something clear, Sonny Liston was my high school sports idol. I thought he was as tough as they come and was invincible. The reference to George Wallace stems from when Wallace visted Green Bay in '63 or '64. He was a racist and I hated everything he stood for. So I went down to the old library or courthouse looking for fights the night Wallace spoke -- may have found some, too, as I recall -- and that's the story behind Mr. Mueller's reference. I want to make that clear. Anyway, as for your question: I thought Loyola beating Cincinnati in the '63 NCAA basketball finals was a victory for a David over Goliath. I know everybody makes a big deal about the Texas Western victory in '66, but, as I recall, Loyola had three black starters and I thought people made a bigger deal of that game at the time. Some might say the 1980 U.S. Olympic Hockey victory, but the '60 victory at Squaw Valley was a bigger deal to me, probably because I was just a kid. Also, that team had some amateur players from Green Bay on it. I think the Jets' victory was the biggest shocker in Super Bowl history. But if there's a great David vs. Goliath story in pro football, it might be the 1929 Packers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Graveyard Garrett of Somewhere in New Mexico - Hi Cliff. Thanks for keeping my legend alive. Do you think that last season was a fluke for Bubba Franks or will he continue to decline as a player? Enjoy your retirement.

A: Cliff Christl - Franks was never anything more than a good player, although a tier or two above Graveyard. Last year, he was less than that. He works hard and maybe he can revive his career for a year or two. But he's also 29 years old and certainly not a great athlete. That's about the age where players like that lose it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bob of Milwaukee - Hi Cliff, Best wishes in the future. Do you think the "points chart" related to draft picks is a detriment to the league? I know if I was a GM and have three players rated the same and three equal need areas, I'd rather trade down a couple of spots for SOMETHING even if it doesn't match the so-called value of the chart. Teams seem too freightened to trade up thinking they will be massacred by not getting enough points. This seems to take the human element (and some good old fun) out of the draft.

A: Cliff Christl - Remember, teams are on the clock when they're drafting. I'm sure that's why someone devised the chart, just to be prepared and to have some sense of what picks were worth. I see nothing wrong with it. It follows the philosophy of the people in the league. The chart is heavily weighted on the side of the top few picks. That's normally where you draft your key playmakers. So teams are going to be reluctant to trade those picks anyway. Thereafter, there certainly is no shortage of trades from late in the first round until the end of the draft.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Scott Blount of Sioux Falls - Thanks for taking my question Cliff, I have always enjoyed your straight forward approach when you evaluate players and the game. You will be missed. You often talk about how special players, those with the ability to make a difference in the game, seem to really stand out at practice, camp etc. My question is as folows; How did the brass in Atlanta miss it so badly on Brett Favre? Did he not jump out as a special talent, even as a rookie, when he was in Atlanta? To your knowledge were there scouts down there who thought he was someone special but were over ruled by the coaching staff? Has the process of evaluation refined itself over the years to the point where that sort of blunder couldn't happen again? Secondly, was it apparent in camp that first year that Favre was a special player and did he jump out as that kind of special talent? I've always been curious how the Packers got so lucky and more importantly how Packer fans got so lucky.

A: Cliff Christl - Great question. Because great players generally do just jump out at practice. I've seen maybe a handful on the Packers' practice field over 30 some years. What about Favre? Ken Herock, the personnel guy down there who later worked under Wolf in Green Bay, told me that he still liked Favre's potential, but that Jerry Glanville wanted him gone. I wasn't there; I don't know. I know this. In his first camp, I thought his arm strength and physical presence just jumped out. But I also thought he might just be another Bobby Douglass, who spent some time in Green Bay after his years with the Bears. Douglass, too, stood out on a practice field. He was an outstanding athlete and had a cannon for an arm, but I've heard he wasn't too bright and he never polished his passing skills. He never knew where the ball was going. As I recall, Favre was really wild for only a few practices and then he just kept getting better. He was able to polish all that untapped potential. If you've ever played pick-up basketball, maybe you can relate to this. Sometimes you'll see a player with tremendous talent who just plays out of control, so they're no better than the average guys in the gym, maybe even worse. And I think most of those players never refine their game and never live up to their potential. But some do and become really special. I think Favre maybe fell in that class.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Lennie Durow of San Diego - Cliff: Thanks for all the years of quality reporting. Although I believe this is a young mans game I was a bit surprised by your blog on Henderson/Leach yesterday. I've always heard that Henderson was such a great leader on special teams and in the locker room. Wouldn't it be wise to keep that presence on the team at a position that is lower paid and not as much for performance factor? Further, we did have two at that position and it would appear that Henderson wouldn't have received many offensive snaps if his counterpart was injured. It would appear that teams need a positive veteran presence more than ever. e.g. Pacman Jones. Couldn't that have been some of the reasons for keeping him around so long. It doesn't appear that TT is "sentimental" in keeping aging players.

A: Cliff Christl - I remember Ron Wolf once dismissing a question I raised about Reggie White's contributions as a leader. Wolf told me: That's what you hire coaches for, to be your leaders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: mike of wayne - Cliff - Mike McCarthy was quoted the other day as saying that the Packers are counting on Robert Ferguson to compete for the No. 2 or 3 wide receiver job. To me, this is the ultimate example of holding on to a guy who can't play and/or settling for mediocrity. What gives? Do MM and TT honestly expect to score points relying on stiffs like Herron, Fergy and Franks? Thanks for all your great work and best of luck!

A: Cliff Christl - I don't get it either. I don't see what they see in Ferguson. Plus, he's always hurt. Coaches who bank on players like that usually don't last long.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Michael Newalu of Kaneohe, HI - After reading your blog entry on the lesson to be learned from allowing a promising young player to slip away so that an older sentimental favorite can be retained, I wonder if the much more important position you allude to in the final statement could be quarterback? Was the lesson as it pertains to Aaron Rodgers sitting while Brett Favre rides off into the sunset on your mind as you made that statement? Or does it even matter since quarterback is the most important position on the field and Rodgers can't beat out Favre anyway? BTW, I will strongly miss your training camp blog. It was a staple of my summer. Enjoy your retirement, Cliff.

A: Cliff Christl - Good question. Favre is certainly on the downside. But maybe Rodgers is one of those quarterbacks who needs to sit on the bench for a few years. Maybe if he would have played earlier, his confidence would have been shot by now. And Favre has kept the Packers competitive. Is that a good thing or would they have been better off finishing 2-14 a couple years in a row? There are grounds for making that argument. But I also think the quarterback position falls into a different category. When I say it's a young man's game, it is, but at every position other than quarterback.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Robert of Orange, CA - Hi Cliff, Thank you for the great chats. I know you prize accuracy in reporting, so forgive me one quibble. In your last article you noted that Tom Braatz's "last draft" included Tony Bennett, Bryce Paup, etc. I'm guessing if that had been the case Braatz would not have been fired. His LAST draft actually included the likes of the immortals Vinnie Clark, Chuck Webb (injured when drafted), and Esera Tuaolo (now famous for other reasons). Quite a dud. Speaking of the drafts, I support everything TT is doing to build on youth BUT I think his administration may be doomed by one thing--the failure to risk big by trading up TWO SPOTS to draft Vince Young. It would have cost a lot, but it also would have meant the Packers could have then traded Aaron Rodgers (or even Favre for that matter)while he still had more value than he appears to now after another mediocre pre-season performance.

A: Cliff Christl - You're right. I regret the mistake. There are no excuses. As for the Packers not trading up to get Young, you might be right. But do we know that Tennessee would have traded the pick? What did the Packers have to offer?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Stephen Doncov of Trenton, MI - Cliff, Well, this is the last chat and I finally made time to make it to one. My question is this, do you think Green Bay will ever become a big city? If so, do you think that would negatively impact the Packers. Enjoy retirement! Cheers mate!

A: Cliff Christl - No. The migration in this country is to South, isn't it? Besides, who would want to live in a city where the downtown is mostly coal piles and parking lots. I'm being a little harsh there, but I don't see the immediate Green Bay area ever growing to that extent. Then again, it probably won't be long before the Fox River Valley is connected from Green Bay to Appleton to Oshkosh and maybe even to Fond du Lac. There isn't much open space left.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: James of South Bend - Cliff, This may be a tough question but do you think Brett Favre would have been an even better QB if he weren't such a gambler or would he not have been nearly as good a player if not for his confidense and risk taking? Packer fans bite thier lip all the time when Brett forces wild picks but its also produced many of memorable plays and touchdowns. What do you think?

A: Cliff Christl - I don't think he would have been the same player if he had tried to play a more conventional style. He wasn't a Tom Brady or Peyton Manning. I think they both threw with better touch and probably better accuracy from the pocket, especially on the deep ball. Favre's game was making big plays out of broken plays. No quarterback was ever better at it. That's why I don't think he could lead a team to victory in the Super Bowl anymore. He no longer does what he did best.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Sheetu of Nashville, TN - Lets say Calvin Johnson is everythign he's hyped to be. Lets say the Packers pull a Mike Ditka, trading all of their draft picks, and maybe some next year to move up and Take calvin johnson. What would you think of the move in regards to both your playmaker theory and your building through the draft theory?

A: Cliff Christl - If the Packers were sure about Rodgers, it might make sense. In fact, I think it would make a lot of sense. But what if Rodgers isn't the answer? Then you might have a James Lofton with a David Whitehurst throwing to him. Where would that get you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ken of Farley - Did you ever meet Vince Lombardi.

A: Cliff Christl - Yes. At the first annual Pro Football Writers of Wisconsin dinner in Milwaukee in 1969. I was a college student and got his autograph on the program. It has a special place in my office, next to my "Can Dan" bumper sticker.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ryan of Decatur - Any relation to 1st Lieutenant Edward C. Christl Jr. of Christl Arena in West Point? I know you love Army-Navy games.

A: Cliff Christl - No. I was the only surviving son of a war veteran. My dad, Clifford H. Christl, fought in the Battle of the Bulge and died shortly after the war after being exposed to some toxic chemicals. I was 13 days old. There aren't many Christls left, at least from my family. My dad was adopted and an only child. But I tip my hat to Edward C. Christl. And, yes, the Army-Navy game is my favorite sporting event.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Rick Cina of Morrisonville, IL - Based on some of the comments on your age of late, I presume you were probably born around and about 1947. In a January chat, you mentioned you were a Bears fan for a specific time period: from ages 9 to 12. Your stated reason for liking the Bears in the late '50s? Because you once got all the players' autographs, and because "they were winners then. As a kid, I only liked winners." Looking into it, though, the Bears weren't necessarily known to be a particularly good team back then. In 1956, they finished first in the West for the first time in 11 years, but got embarrassed in the championship game to the tune of 47-7. From '57-'60, which were likely around your 9 to 12 age range, the Bears finished 5-7, 8-4, 8-4, and 5-6-1, failing to reach the playoffs each of those years. And what happened to you at age 13? Because that was about the time ('61) the Packers started winning championships; Green Bay won 5 championships during your impressionable teenage years. Didn't you attend several games at Lambeau in the '60s? Did you go strictly as a football fan, or as a fan of the opposing team? Wouldn't it have been difficult for someone your age to *not* be at least a moderate fan of the team during that time, especially since the Packers were winners then (and you've said that you only liked winners)? How did you manage to stubbornly and strategically avoid developing an affinity for your own state's professional football team as a young person? And what would be the primary reason why you couldn't find it within yourself to like or favor those Lombardi teams like you did Driscoll's/Halas' teams from ages 9 through 12?

A: Cliff Christl - You know your history. But keep in mind it was a different world back then. There were no national games of the week on TV. Your local game was the only game that you could watch. So at age eight or nine, I probably hadn't seen most of the teams in the Eastern Conference play. My little world probably was limited to the Packers and Bears. And the Bears always beat the Packers, so that's probably why I liked them. But I became a Packer fan when they started winning under Lombardi. Never a gung-ho fan, though. I followed the game. But I probably knew the Boston Patriots' roster as well the Packers' roster and the Patriots were in the other league. Butch Songin. Remember him? He was the quarterback of the Patriots and looked about 50 years old. Tom Yewcic, as I recall, was the backup. Bob Dee, Larry Eisenhauer and Houston Antwine were three of their defensive linemen. That's the kind of fan I was. I studied rosters and rated players, even though I didn't know what I was doing. Jim Nance. He was a bulldozer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Russell Brand of Milwaukee - Cliff: I have followed your writing on the Packers for years and have always considered you a serious writer, and dare may I say, an Artist....So here is my question. Why are you retiring? My observations suggest that most Artists in fact do not retire...they die on stage. Think of all those old blues players, the Rolling Stones etc. Best of luck and health to you and yours. Thanks for the good work.

A: Cliff Christl - I guess because I'm able to do it financially and wouldn't most people rather not work than work? But I'll stay active. Maybe write some books. And this way, I'll be able to do some things I haven't been able to do because of my work schedule. No. 1, spend a lot more time with my grandson in the Twin Cities. No. 2, see some sporting events that I've always wanted to see: Harvard-Yale at Yale Stadium; the Grey Cup; the Kentucky Derby; a Canton-Massillon high school football game; an Army game at Michie Stadium, for starters. And I'll be able to take off to Sturgis, Daytona and other places on my bike after camp starts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ben G. of Tulsa, OK - Cliff, what will happen to your Hall of Fame ballot after you retire? I remember reading SI's Peter King letting us in on how well done your presentations were to the committee. Your retirement will leave a sizable gap for others to fill. Not only for Packer fans, but football fans nationwide. Thanks for giving us your strongest years.

A: Cliff Christl - Joe Horrigan of the Hall of Fame asked me last week to stay on the committee. The by-laws allow the Hall to retain a committee member for up to two years even if he isn't actively covering the game. But I told Joe that after the dust settled, I may look to do something that would meet the qualifications of "actively" covering the game. At the same time, I told him I would never do anything to compromise the credibility of the committee. So if I felt that was the case, I would step down immediately.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mad Dog of East Texas - Cliff- I thought about trying to take it easy on you since you are riding off into the sunset (probably on Kawasaki that you bought a Harley Davidson conversion kit for) and then I thought I wouldn't want you leaving this job with a false sense of security that you actually knew half as much as you thought you did. You more than most people label a guy right away and whatever the label is, that is how you view that player for the rest of his career. Kampman for example is just a "try hard guy" and always will be in your eyes although you now credit his work ethic, but you weren't impressed until last year with him overall, but he isn't a try hard guy. He'd start for every single NFL team right now. So my question is is there anybody on the Packer roster right now that falls in the Cliff Christl " He is just a try hard guy" that could emerge as a bonafide upper echelon player. To me it seemed like a couple of receivers stepped up out of nowhere and flashed some ability and guts in making the big crucual play. I also think this retirement stuff is a cynical attemt for you to say "Look Matt Millen outlasted my career even, therefore I was right and everyone else was wrong in that Millen rocks". Of course Ford is willing to lose billions a year on cars instead of changing there outlook, so it's not surprising theuy keep the edsel of GM's in charge. You and Randy Wright can discuss this over a beer tonight when you are done with this chat. So long. I'll concede that you are a decent writer and not a try hard guy, but your thought process gets in the way at times. Hope I helped straighten you out.

A: Cliff Christl - What's that new TV show: "Are you as smart as a fifth-grader?" I know you resist buying into the playmaker theory even though every GM and coach in the game subscribes to it. Maybe they should start a new show for you. "Are you as smart as a first-grader?" Isn't that when most people learn that the team that gets the first pick usually wins? I think if you'd look back, I was one of the first to write that Kampman was a much better player than advertised. In fact, there was a time when a lot of people on this chat wouldn't buy that. But Kampman has a ceiling. He's not a dominant player. He's not Jason Taylor or Julius Peppers. Teams aren't going to game plan around him. If you were as smart as a first-grader, you wouldn't pick him first on the playground. Are there players on the Packers' roster who could become special some day? Maybe A.J. Hawk and I'm not sold on that. Anyway, I enjoy your questions, your sarcasm, your rabid bite. And I'm glad that not all my enemies are disappearing. My favorite lead ever on the sports pages was written by Dick Young, the crusty old New York writer, after Thurman Munson was killed in a plane crash. And it read something like this: "I didn't like Thurman Munson when he was alive and I don't like him any better now that he's dead." Thanks for sticking to your guns and not liking me any better today than before I decided to retire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Buzz Opick of Granger, Indiana - What a class act you have been! Man-oh-man, are we going to miss your Packer Plus writings. You know, from my perspective, two of the best writers are located in Wisconsin, Cliff Christl and Peter Egan- it definately must be something in the water. Mr. Christl, you are an erudite sportswriter- your chrisp (and sparse) writing style that conveys a lot with minimum verbage will be missed. Your chats, where you put pins in the balloons of all the Monday morning "general managers" will also be missed. Tell me, your working on a book or two. Be well my friend!!!

A: Cliff Christl - Buzz, thank you so much for the kind words. I've truly been overwhelmed and humbled by the feedback that I've received since I wrote on a chat that I planned to retire. I feel like I've almost gotten to know some of you personally. You're great fans, for the most part, of your football team and you've been great participants in these chats. Good night and the best to you.

Whistler6
03-30-2007, 11:07 AM
Okay so I just bought a box of 2005 score football box..I got a Vernanad Morency, Aaron Rodgers, AND T-MURPH rookie card. Exciting huh :|

princefielder28
03-30-2007, 02:18 PM
Okay so I just bought a box of 2005 score football box..I got a Vernanad Morency, Aaron Rodgers, AND T-MURPH rookie card. Exciting huh :|

I wish Terrence Murphy could've returned. :(

neko4
03-30-2007, 03:02 PM
I wish Terrence Murphy could've returned. :(

He still playing at all, I know he really didnt want to leave, but GB thought it was best he call it quits

princefielder28
03-30-2007, 03:13 PM
He still playing at all, I know he really didnt want to leave, but GB thought it was best he call it quits

It was medically suggested that he stop playing b/c it would be difficult for him to pass a complete physical

Empire
03-30-2007, 04:15 PM
Murphy could have been a very very good receiver. Probably the kind of receiver that we wanted Ferguson to be when we drafted him. But then again if we had Murphy we probably never would have gotten Jennings.

Vince Lombardi
03-30-2007, 04:20 PM
aww yea..........

Switching numbers
Two Packers are changing their uniform numbers for the upcoming season.
Wide receiver Robert Ferguson (http://www.packers.com/team/players/ferguson_robert/), who has worn No. 89 for his first six seasons with the Packers, is switching to No. 87.

Meanwhile, linebacker Abdul Hodge (http://www.packers.com/team/players/hodge_abdul/), who wore No. 55 last season as a rookie, is changing to No. 52. Hodge wore No. 52 in high school in Florida and in college at Iowa, and it's the number his younger brother, Elijah, wears as a linebacker for the Wisconsin Badgers.

http://www.packers.com/news/stories/2007/03/27/1/

neko4
03-30-2007, 04:34 PM
Ummm, old news...

Hawk
03-30-2007, 05:52 PM
Murphy could have been a very very good receiver. Probably the kind of receiver that we wanted Ferguson to be when we drafted him. But then again if we had Murphy we probably never would have gotten Jennings.

I thought Murphy and Jennings were basically the same player as far as skills

NAVY
03-30-2007, 05:52 PM
This really is a dead week for football news....

Jim Jim
03-30-2007, 05:54 PM
It's hard to say if Murphy would have been good, but I don't think he would have been good as Jennings is.

princefielder28
03-30-2007, 06:48 PM
It's hard to say if Murphy would have been good, but I don't think he would have been good as Jennings is.

He'd be a better option than Ferguson

Jim Jim
03-30-2007, 07:09 PM
He'd be a better option than Ferguson

A one legged midget is a better option than Ferguson.

princefielder28
03-30-2007, 07:34 PM
A one legged midget is a better option than Ferguson.

Oh yeah!!!!

TitleTown088
03-30-2007, 07:44 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uNhY46CMbE&mode=related&search=

this video of Rex is pretty good.

PACKmanN
03-30-2007, 09:42 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uNhY46CMbE&mode=related&search=

this video of Rex is pretty good.

lol, the pic of willams sacking grossman reminds me of Gilbert Brown.

Empire
03-30-2007, 11:06 PM
I thought Murphy and Jennings were basically the same player as far as skills

Well I'm just saying if Murphy had developed into a solid number 2, there would have been less of a reason to draft Jennings. We could have and probably would have drafted someone else.

NAVY
03-31-2007, 01:00 AM
Well I'm just saying if Murphy had developed into a solid number 2, there would have been less of a reason to draft Jennings. We could have and probably would have drafted someone else.

Then again maybe not. Driver is not getting any younger, and TT does tend to draft BPA. I think Jennings was a great pick. Look at the production from the WR's drafted around him...other then Colston in the 7th their really werent any stand out rookies.

Boston
03-31-2007, 11:27 AM
Then again maybe not. Driver is not getting any younger, and TT does tend to draft BPA. I think Jennings was a great pick. Look at the production from the WR's drafted around him...other then Colston in the 7th their really werent any stand out rookies.

WR's are rarely stand out rookies.

princefielder28
03-31-2007, 11:36 AM
WR's are rarely stand out rookies.

For the majority of wideouts their 3rd NFL season is when they really start to play up to their potential

Xiomera
03-31-2007, 12:43 PM
Simple question: Do you think the Packers take Greg Olsen at 16?? Or are they more focused on a WR now in the first? (lets assume Lynch is gone and you can't trade up).

Empire
03-31-2007, 12:44 PM
Then again maybe not. Driver is not getting any younger, and TT does tend to draft BPA. I think Jennings was a great pick. Look at the production from the WR's drafted around him...other then Colston in the 7th their really werent any stand out rookies.

I never said Jennings was a bad value pick. Just saying that if Murphy had ended up being a solid wideout there would have been less of a reason to spend a second round pick on a WR when we could have picked a player that could have made an impact at a different position. A later pick could have been used on a wideout. This is of course all speculation. I'm just saying if Murphy had developed we might not have had Jennings.

GB12
03-31-2007, 01:03 PM
Simple question: Do you think the Packers take Greg Olsen at 16?? Or are they more focused on a WR now in the first? (lets assume Lynch is gone and you can't trade up).

I'm really thinking that we wouldn't do either. I really don't want a TE in the first round. We can get someone later in the draft and TT should be able to find one. Is it a need, yes. Is it a need that warrents the #16 pick, no. Going in with Franks, Lee, and a 2-5 round TE would be fine. i'd rather get more value in the first.

As for WR, we talk a lot about getting Moss, which I would love to happen, but if we don't I'm not sure we go WR in the first. Most of the players I like that were in our range earlier have moved up(Landry, Okoye, etc.). If we could get either of those two or Lynch that would be the pick. If not the next best thing would be to move down in the mid 20s and get Griffin while picking up more picks. If that's not possible I guess Nelson, eventhough i'm not a fan. Mrachem would be next followed by Olsen. In no way do I want Ginn.

princefielder28
03-31-2007, 01:24 PM
What do you guys think of Aundrae Allison of East Carolina????

Jim Jim
03-31-2007, 03:09 PM
What do you guys think of Aundrae Allison of East Carolina????

Love him. I think he could thrive in our offense.

johbur
03-31-2007, 08:11 PM
Simple question: Do you think the Packers take Greg Olsen at 16?? Or are they more focused on a WR now in the first? (lets assume Lynch is gone and you can't trade up).

Answered in the other topic, but for the people thinking you can just get a TE later, like Ben Patrick or whoever, the point is that you can't get a fast TE later on. Olsen is MUCH faster than the other TEs, and he has proven hands and had a good career with mediocre QBing. 40 times aren't everything, but they're a pretty good indication whether a guy will be able to get separation from a safety and get down the seam, which Olsen can do. I also like the two TE offense with the ZBS, and maybe Olsen can learn to be a good cut-blocker even though he's not a great pass-blocker, which he shouldn't be anyways considering you want him out on pass routes and not in.

PackAttack
04-01-2007, 02:29 AM
Just an FYI, ESPN is reporting that it is believed the Packers have NOT expressed interest in Michael Turner. But, they say that Buffalo, amongst others, have.

Here's my thinking....would it be so bad if Buffalo traded for Turner? That would just about gurantee Lynch falling to us and, should Cleveland and Houston pass on Peterson he could fall to a range where we could somewhat easily trade up for him. I wouldn't mind that scenario.

cuzifelt1ikeit
04-01-2007, 09:39 AM
WOLF WANTS BACK IN

After seven years of retirement, former Packers G.M. Ron Wolf is ready to give it another go.

Per a league source, Wolf is quietly making it known among Green Bay board members that he'd be willing to come back for another stint with the team, if the team were inclined to have him.

The source says that Wolf would only return if he has final say over the roster and the coaching staff, which means that Ted Thompson would have to be demoted or fired.

Wolf led the franchise to its only Super Bowl win in the past 40 years. Since he retired, the team generally has struggled.


From PFT. only an april fools joke but how would you guys feel about this?e

bearsfan_51
04-01-2007, 09:57 AM
Just an FYI, ESPN is reporting that it is believed the Packers have NOT expressed interest in Michael Turner. But, they say that Buffalo, amongst others, have.

Here's my thinking....would it be so bad if Buffalo traded for Turner? That would just about gurantee Lynch falling to us and, should Cleveland and Houston pass on Peterson he could fall to a range where we could somewhat easily trade up for him. I wouldn't mind that scenario.

From what I've heard, Buffalo doesn't want to spend it's 1st rounder on a runninback anyway and will go defense. They're still looking at Chris Brown to work in tandem with A-Train or to pick up somebody in the 2nd or 3rd round.

princefielder28
04-01-2007, 10:29 AM
From what I've heard, Buffalo doesn't want to spend it's 1st rounder on a runninback anyway and will go defense. They're still looking at Chris Brown to work in tandem with A-Train or to pick up somebody in the 2nd or 3rd round.

Thats good news for the Pack! :)

GB12
04-01-2007, 12:08 PM
WOLF WANTS BACK IN

After seven years of retirement, former Packers G.M. Ron Wolf is ready to give it another go.

Per a league source, Wolf is quietly making it known among Green Bay board members that he'd be willing to come back for another stint with the team, if the team were inclined to have him.

The source says that Wolf would only return if he has final say over the roster and the coaching staff, which means that Ted Thompson would have to be demoted or fired.

Wolf led the franchise to its only Super Bowl win in the past 40 years. Since he retired, the team generally has struggled.


From PFT. only an april fools joke but how would you guys feel about this?e

Haha, no thanks. I'd take him back as an advisor but keep Thompson at GM.

princefielder28
04-01-2007, 12:10 PM
Haha, no thanks. I'd take him back as an advisor but keep Thompson at GM.

Most definitely!

neko4
04-01-2007, 12:24 PM
Anybody remeber Walter Williams? Just Wondern

princefielder28
04-01-2007, 12:25 PM
Anybody remeber Walter Williams? Just Wondern

Yes he played RB and got a little time against Houston on a Sunday night

neko4
04-01-2007, 12:37 PM
Yes he played RB and got a little time against Houston on a Sunday night

He actually avg. like 6 yds a carry that game, Im just wonderin where he is now. I saw him make a catch in '05

princefielder28
04-01-2007, 02:55 PM
He actually avg. like 6 yds a carry that game, Im just wonderin where he is now. I saw him make a catch in '05

He potentially playing in NFL Europe but I have no clue

Football Fan
04-02-2007, 06:11 AM
http://calbears.cstv.com.

da-giez
04-02-2007, 08:08 AM
http://calbears.cstv.com.

just go to http://www.marshawn10.com

Whistler6
04-02-2007, 12:39 PM
I like TT a lot alright so this is not me bashing him..

But am I the only person who might think TT hates Brett Favre? Didn't make 1 big move on Offense in Free Agency last offseason and hasn't made one big attempt to this offseason.. Our offesne is built to be good in about 3 years and we NEED 1-2 big time players now. Just an opinion*****

Whistler6
04-02-2007, 12:40 PM
I was at work yesterday, and they reported on the radio that Green Bay had signed Randy Moss. They went on with this for about 2 hours, then said the press conference would be aired shortly. A few minutes later...APRIL FOOLS! Talk about pissed.. ohh man haha

umphrey
04-02-2007, 01:40 PM
I like TT a lot alright so this is not me bashing him..

But am I the only person who might think TT hates Brett Favre? Didn't make 1 big move on Offense in Free Agency last offseason and hasn't made one big attempt to this offseason.. Our offesne is built to be good in about 3 years and we NEED 1-2 big time players now. Just an opinion*****

What did you want him to do? There weren't any offensive FAs that...

1. Would have helped us
2. Would have started
3. We didn't try to sign (Griffith)

Exceptions being the FA TEs but I didn't like them all that much, and RB but I think TT is looking to the draft for that. He's probably leaving a hole for Olsen or Lynch in the draft, whichever is there, and will fill the other hole after the June 1st cuts/trade/other draft pick.

princefielder28
04-02-2007, 03:58 PM
What did you want him to do? There weren't any offensive FAs that...

1. Would have helped us
2. Would have started
3. We didn't try to sign (Griffith)

Exceptions being the FA TEs but I didn't like them all that much, and RB but I think TT is looking to the draft for that. He's probably leaving a hole for Olsen or Lynch in the draft, whichever is there, and will fill the other hole after the June 1st cuts/trade/other draft pick.

I don't rewally mind what he's doing b/c just now that he has money doesn't mean he has to spend it all.

GB12
04-02-2007, 04:37 PM
Preseason schedule

1.Seattle
2. Pittsburgh
3.Jacksonville(on National TV)
4.Tennessee

princefielder28
04-02-2007, 04:53 PM
Preseason schedule

1.Seattle
2. Pittsburgh
3.Jacksonville(on National TV)
4.Tennessee

Good teams to go up against and see what type of team we'll have going into the regular season.

JF4
04-02-2007, 06:31 PM
I like TT a lot alright so this is not me bashing him..

But am I the only person who might think TT hates Brett Favre? Didn't make 1 big move on Offense in Free Agency last offseason and hasn't made one big attempt to this offseason.. Our offesne is built to be good in about 3 years and we NEED 1-2 big time players now. Just an opinion*****

You have to realize that TT doesn't like to build team's through free agency, he never has and probably never will. He builds team through the draft and this year will be no different. He is extremely conservative with his money and won't spend on a free agent he doesn't feel sure about. Also there weren't any real great free agents at the positions we need on offense WR, RB, TE. IMO, all the RB's that we're FA's this year would probably have the same numbers in our system as Ahman Green had last year.

I don't think TT should change his philosophy of building a team for just one guy, even if the guy is the god of the franchise. TT realizes that our future is a few years after Favre retires so why sign older FA's when we can get solid young players through the draft.

princefielder28
04-02-2007, 06:39 PM
You have to realize that TT doesn't like to build team's through free agency, he never has and probably never will. He builds team through the draft and this year will be no different. He is extremely conservative with his money and won't spend on a free agent he doesn't feel sure about. Also there weren't any real great free agents at the positions we need on offense WR, RB, TE. IMO, all the RB's that we're FA's this year would probably have the same numbers in our system as Ahman Green had last year.

I don't think TT should change his philosophy of building a team for just one guy, even if the guy is the god of the franchise. TT realizes that our future is a few years after Favre retires so why sign older FA's when we can get solid young players through the draft.

Thats the way it is! :)

Mwkick
04-02-2007, 06:51 PM
It's still frustrating. I think there were some free agents that could have helped this franchise. McMichael is a quality receiving tight end who signed for a lot less than people expected. Griffith would have been okay in the system and signed for dirt as well. I understand having a philosophy and building for the future but both of those guys are young. And the draft is hit and miss anyway. If you're all about youth, then it's hypocritical in my opionion when there are or were guys that were free agents that are young and have yet to peak.

I'm not bashing either. I'm remaining positive. The packers are heading in the right direction (IMO), but I too would have liked to see them take advantage of favre while they have him. I guess I look at it as he's here to mentor cause it'll be AT LEAST 2-3 years before they're serious contenders.

Can't wait until draft day!

JF4
04-02-2007, 07:01 PM
It's still frustrating. I think there were some free agents that could have helped this franchise. McMichael is a quality receiving tight end who signed for a lot less than people expected. Griffith would have been okay in the system and signed for dirt as well. I understand having a philosophy and building for the future but both of those guys are young. And the draft is hit and miss anyway. If you're all about youth, then it's hypocritical in my opionion when there are or were guys that were free agents that are young and have yet to peak.

I'm not bashing either. I'm remaining positive. The packers are heading in the right direction (IMO), but I too would have liked to see them take advantage of favre while they have him. I guess I look at it as he's here to mentor cause it'll be AT LEAST 2-3 years before they're serious contenders.

Can't wait until draft day!

I agree with you on the two players you named, I can't say I wouldn't have minded them on the Packers. I think both of them would have had an impact on the offense. I don't know about McMicheal but I think TT probably tried to sign Griffith, he had him in GB for a visit and I wouldn't be surprised if he made him an offer. Maybe Griffith just thought he'd be better off in Oakland and he'd get more opportunity to run with the ball.

With McMicheal I do think TT should have taken a close look at this guy, and maybe he did. Signing these free agents isn't really the end all be all and it's not because he doesn't like Favre. It's because he saw something in them that we didn't or they wouldn't accept the offer's he made them. I still have full trust in TT and like you I can't wait till draft day and to see what he has up his sleeve.

Mwkick
04-02-2007, 07:37 PM
I agree with that. I just think a TE who can catch better than franks (which doesn't take much lately) would be lethal. I do give Franks credit tho, he's blocked really well IMO. I've yet to see a NFL team use a TE in the backfiedl to block as frequently as the pack did last year. But Franks did the job and did it well. I think mixing him with a guy like McMichael would have been a nice mix. But I'm not the GM for a reason.

NFL draft day is probably my favorite sporting event. I've had a draft day party every year since my junior year in college. My girl thinks it's ridiculous how "into it" i get, but it is a good time. And I will admit the packers have had some good picks lately.

Whistler6
04-02-2007, 10:03 PM
You have to realize that TT doesn't like to build team's through free agency, he never has and probably never will. He builds team through the draft and this year will be no different. He is extremely conservative with his money and won't spend on a free agent he doesn't feel sure about. Also there weren't any real great free agents at the positions we need on offense WR, RB, TE. IMO, all the RB's that we're FA's this year would probably have the same numbers in our system as Ahman Green had last year.

I don't think TT should change his philosophy of building a team for just one guy, even if the guy is the god of the franchise. TT realizes that our future is a few years after Favre retires so why sign older FA's when we can get solid young players through the draft.

Well Favre isnt going to be around for these rookies who develop in 2-3 years..thats all I was saying

M1Koter
04-03-2007, 10:22 AM
Well Favre isnt going to be around for these rookies who develop in 2-3 years..thats all I was saying

yeah well we arn't gunna be winning a super bowl in the next couple years so whats the point.

Mwkick
04-03-2007, 10:35 AM
YOU MEANT TO SAY....by only relying on draft picks, we aren't going to win the superbowl any time soon....

M1Koter
04-03-2007, 10:41 AM
YOU MEANT TO SAY....by only relying on draft picks, we aren't going to win the superbowl any time soon....

I say were a good 3-4 years away from realistic super bowl hopes and bringing in FA won't make it happen any time sooner

TitleTown088
04-03-2007, 10:52 AM
YOU MEANT TO SAY....by only relying on draft picks, we aren't going to win the superbowl any time soon.... Exactly who the did you have in your elaborate plan for the Packers this offseason?
I sure didn't see anyone that would be worth all the money they would require for their marginal upgrade at the Packers positions of need. This team is being built beautifully through the draft and there's no reason to change policy right now. The draft policy will work out just fine you just need to wait. Key free agents will be added at appropiate prices and times. Patience is a virtue.

Mwkick
04-03-2007, 10:57 AM
I'm sorry but I think Moss a safety and a good draft could vastly improve this team. The NFC is weak right now. A playmaker or two on offense, another healthy year on defense and they could be contenders with favre. That's my opinion...

Mwkick
04-03-2007, 10:58 AM
And I know all about patients...I teach.

M1Koter
04-03-2007, 11:23 AM
I'm sorry but I think Moss a safety and a good draft could vastly improve this team. The NFC is weak right now. A playmaker or two on offense, another healthy year on defense and they could be contenders with favre. That's my opinion...

Where are we going to get a playmaker or two and a saftey, throught the draft, find me a play maker that didn't get signed for twice as much as he was worth this offseason. The only decent satey in FA was ken hamlin and I don't think he would have been all that good of a fit in the packers system

Mwkick
04-03-2007, 12:58 PM
Trades anyone???? I'm not saying strictly free agents. You'd have to trade for Moss. He's a playmaker. I'm not a true believer in STRICTLY sticking to the draft. Everyone knows that the packers lack a true playmaker on offense. U think every pick that thompson's going to make is going to pan out????!! Get real man. I'm just saying that while Favre is still around, why not take a chance on a guy like Moss? It wouldn't kill what Thompson and obviously u covet most, the draft. Stop being so dang draft crazy and read what i posted...

You can draft a safety that can help, but as far as playmakers, I was talking about moss.

umphrey
04-03-2007, 01:01 PM
Well I would think that the Packers aren't going to be thinking superbowl for 2-3 years minimum, at which point Moss won't be useful anymore. Trading for him now would delay the development of Jennings, cost a draft pick also hurting our future, and possibly causing problems in a few years when we have Moss and poor QB play if we don't replace Favre right away.

For those reasons, I don't see much benefit in trading for Moss.

Jim Jim
04-03-2007, 01:57 PM
Anything can happen in the playoffs.

princefielder28
04-03-2007, 02:08 PM
Well I would think that the Packers aren't going to be thinking superbowl for 2-3 years minimum, at which point Moss won't be useful anymore. Trading for him now would delay the development of Jennings, cost a draft pick also hurting our future, and possibly causing problems in a few years when we have Moss and poor QB play if we don't replace Favre right away.

For those reasons, I don't see much benefit in trading for Moss.

With as weak as the NFC is the Packers have a good chance one of these as long as they make the playoffs

neko4
04-03-2007, 06:51 PM
Anybody seen this yet?
http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/GB/10105974

M1Koter
04-04-2007, 11:31 AM
are we so bored that we actually care about who gets chosen for vice president of finance? This offseason is pretty dry of new info lately

princefielder28
04-04-2007, 01:58 PM
are we so bored that we actually care about who gets chosen for vice president of finance? This offseason is pretty dry of new info lately

Dry is an understatement

Boston
04-04-2007, 04:36 PM
Dry is an understatement

Come on now. Who doesn't enjoy those catching up with little known players articles on packers.com?

princefielder28
04-04-2007, 04:41 PM
Come on now. Who doesn't enjoy those catching up with little known players articles on packers.com?

Last year we had everything: Brett's potential retirement, new coach, Ryan Pickett signing, Woodson signing, Top 5 pick

Boston
04-04-2007, 05:32 PM
Last year we had everything: Brett's potential retirement, new coach, Ryan Pickett signing, Woodson signing, Top 5 pick

Last offseason was bad. There was so many questions marks. Nothing was guaranteed last season. This year, as boring as it may seem to be, is less confusing, and there is much more potential heading into the new year.

JF4
04-04-2007, 11:15 PM
Last offseason was bad. There was so many questions marks. Nothing was guaranteed last season. This year, as boring as it may seem to be, is less confusing, and there is much more potential heading into the new year.

The question marks were what kind of made it interesting last year. We all knew the Packers had to make a few moves to improve the team but we had no idea what they were going to do. This year they really don't have to make any trades or big signings.

Mwkick
04-05-2007, 12:50 AM
Wow. I want to know what everyone's going to say if the packers finish worst this year than last. I mean everyone just assumes that the packers are oging ot just keep improving. There's very little depth to this team. I think people fail to realize how lucky the packers were that only one starting defender missed a game last year.

Here's a question for people....how will you feel about your beloved Ted Thompson if the packers finish with a losing record next year???? Will you still have patience?

M1Koter
04-05-2007, 06:04 AM
Wow. I want to know what everyone's going to say if the packers finish worst this year than last. I mean everyone just assumes that the packers are oging ot just keep improving. There's very little depth to this team. I think people fail to realize how lucky the packers were that only one starting defender missed a game last year.

Here's a question for people....how will you feel about your beloved Ted Thompson if the packers finish with a losing record next year???? Will you still have patience?

why do you try to start arguments?? Stop being such a pessimist

Gravedigger42
04-05-2007, 09:17 AM
Wow. I want to know what everyone's going to say if the packers finish worst this year than last. I mean everyone just assumes that the packers are oging ot just keep improving. There's very little depth to this team. I think people fail to realize how lucky the packers were that only one starting defender missed a game last year.

Here's a question for people....how will you feel about your beloved Ted Thompson if the packers finish with a losing record next year???? Will you still have patience?

Yes because we shouldn't have had a winning record this year. With TT running things the future of the org is bright. He is putting the Packers in a position to be a good team for many years instead of sacrificing the long term for a shot in the dark chance at 1 yr of potential.

princefielder28
04-05-2007, 09:18 AM
Yes because we shouldn't have had a winning record this year. With TT running things the future of the org is bright. He is putting the Packers in a position to be a good team for many years instead of sacrificing the long term for a shot in the dark chance at 1 yr of potential.

Very well put

Mwkick
04-05-2007, 10:57 AM
M1 I'm asking a question. You just love to hate me...

M1Koter
04-05-2007, 11:19 AM
M1 I'm asking a question. You just love to hate me...

dont hate, accelerate

GadoR'Savior
04-05-2007, 11:20 AM
I think its a good question thats not starting a fight.... I would like to know 2 personally. This will be Bretts last year and this was are best shot to make a run but we have show no interest in that so far. After Brett is gone are shot of winning goes down with Rodgers not a shot at him but just pointing that out. What if he bombs doesnt matter how good your team is but if you dont have a QB to lead it is tough to go anywhere. Unless you have as good as a Defense as the Bears where you only need to score like 7-13 pts a game to win.

Thats the thing you have to miss bout Ron Wolfe, he took chances and built though the draft. If there was a FA, or a trade to be made that could be made to make the Packers better, he'd do it. Not just build though the draft...Prickett and Woodson were huge and good moves for him but i'd liked to have seen him maybe make a bigger push for A. Thomas and be more interested in Turner maybe trade for Moss. Stuff will happen yet and I know hes not goin to sit there with his tail between his legs all off-season but in all honesty after Bretts gone, who knows. This was the year to try to make an impact. I love TT but i need something to give me a little faith that he would want to try to win this year, and give Favre somethin to work with. IMO

ny10804
04-05-2007, 11:21 AM
^ good post.

Gado, your sig is a tad large.

GadoR'Savior
04-05-2007, 11:24 AM
yeah im try to fix it

princefielder28
04-05-2007, 11:28 AM
^ good post.

Gado, your sig is a tad large.

just a bit big

M1Koter
04-05-2007, 11:31 AM
I see what your saying and understand, and yes I do agree that sometimes you do need some help from FA and trades but you build your team with draft picks. I would love for turner to come to green bay, I just think that a 1st and 3rd are too much for the guy. Randy moss will not be around when the packers devlop into a super bowl contender. Thats a couple years down the road and to trade a guy thats been devolping in the packers and looks to be the future of the QB postion in Rodger, for a guy that'll play with Farve for his last year or two and thats it I just don't deem it worthy. Isn't the goal of everything a team does a goal of the super bowl victory and to think otherwise and just help out a legend in his last two years just doesn't make sense to me. Yeah we could get another QB in the draft but then that QB will be another 3-4 years before he's even considered a good quality QB. And by that time I think this team will be it's prime and we don't want an unexperienced QB holding us back from that.

princefielder28
04-05-2007, 11:33 AM
I see what your saying and understand, and yes I do agree that sometimes you do need some help from FA and trades but you build your team with draft picks. I would love for turner to come to green bay, I just think that a 1st and 3rd are too much for the guy. Randy moss will not be around when the packers devlop into a super bowl contender. Thats a couple years down the road and to trade a guy thats been devolping in the packers and looks to be the future of the QB postion in Rodger, for a guy that'll play with Farve for his last year or two and thats it I just don't deem it worthy. Isn't the goal of everything a team does a goal of the super bowl victory and to think otherwise and just help out a legend in his last two years just doesn't make sense to me. Yeah we could get another QB in the draft but then that QB will be another 3-4 years before he's even considered a good quality QB. And by that time I think this team will be it's prime and we don't want an unexperienced QB holding us back from that.

I'm pretty sure Moss will not be a Packer due to the fact that the Raiders said they want to keep him and I'm sure it would be touhg for the Raiders and Pack to agree to a deal. In regard to Turner, he is a quality back but he isn't quite worth the price that the Chargers are looking for and if the Chargers don't lower that price they will see him walk next year without getting anything in return.

M1Koter
04-05-2007, 11:39 AM
I'm pretty sure Moss will not be a Packer due to the fact that the Raiders said they want to keep him and I'm sure it would be touhg for the Raiders and Pack to agree to a deal. In regard to Turner, he is a quality back but he isn't quite worth the price that the Chargers are looking for and if the Chargers don't lower that price they will see him walk next year without getting anything in return.

I agree with what your saying, I really don't think moss will become a packer.

TitleTown088
04-05-2007, 01:16 PM
I agree with what your saying, I really don't think moss will become a packer.

I wouldn't be so sure Randy won't be moved. I think Al wants Cj pretty bad.

princefielder28
04-05-2007, 02:53 PM
I wouldn't be so sure Randy won't be moved. I think Al wants Cj pretty bad.

But does Al want Andrew Walter as his QB??? I don't think so.

Boston
04-05-2007, 04:13 PM
But does Al want Andrew Walter as his QB??? I don't think so.

It doesn't matter who the quarterback is. There is an overall reason Brooks and Walter both failed. Some of it probably was due to their overall lack of competance to be starting QB's, but most of it was because of the terrible supporting cast that they were surrounded with.

princefielder28
04-05-2007, 05:05 PM
It doesn't matter who the quarterback is. There is an overall reason Brooks and Walter both failed. Some of it probably was due to their overall lack of competance to be starting QB's, but most of it was because of the terrible supporting cast that they were surrounded with.

Al does have more of an interest in an African American QB that can play. If Moss and Porter are there and Russell is QB the Raiders will be a threat if they have any better of an O-Line

Mwkick
04-05-2007, 05:47 PM
I see what you're saying M1. I still don't think it would be a bad thing to bring in Moss. He could immediately stretch the field and take some pressure off any offensive rookie.

Mwkick
04-05-2007, 05:48 PM
And not to nitpick, but I don't think Al just looks to see if the qb is black. He's just looking for what seems to be the trend....an athletic qb.

Boston
04-05-2007, 06:17 PM
And not to nitpick, but I don't think Al just looks to see if the qb is black. He's just looking for what seems to be the trend....an athletic qb.

Which, not to sound racist, is the black quarterback.

PackAttack
04-05-2007, 06:23 PM
I'd just like to toss this out here regarding TT's lack of movement this offseason so far and what will happen after Brett leaves...

Heres my thing....in this league it is no longer such a big deal for a rookie QB or first year starter to succeed. If the QB has a strong supporting cast he can do well (Phillip Rivers, Big Ben) or sometimes even just on pure talent alone (Vince Young). True, Rogers will not have had much game-time experience come next year but....

1) He will have had 3 years of watching Favre play and being tutored by him
2) He will have had 3 years of assimilating our offense
3) He will have a strong supporting cast by next year after this year's draft, next year's draft and some solid FA moves next year when we have a TON of cap space.

Rogers will be put in prime position to succeed if he has to start next year. He is unproven, yes, but if he has any talent indiciative of his draft position and "hype" coming in to the league he will do just fine.

jackalope
04-05-2007, 07:00 PM
I don't expect anything else to happen with Moss anymore. The rumor seems to have died, which is a good thing in my opinion.

I like how TT has handled the offseason so far. It was a weak FA class and there was a lot of overpaying so i'm happy we stayed out of it.

Mwkick
04-05-2007, 07:02 PM
I agree. I'm just curious...how much experience do you get watching someone? I've been watching brett for years now....

I think next year, they will be in a real good position. Especially with the cap space, they can use that to add the final few pieces of the puzzle. They need a playmaker. I'm curious to see how Rodgers does.

JF4
04-05-2007, 10:17 PM
I like the idea of signing a big name free agent in the next couple years. We will have a ton of salary cap and when Favre leaves it will only get bigger. It would have to be someone in the mold of like an Adalius Thomas, in potential and playmaking ability.

Football Fan
04-05-2007, 11:55 PM
THURSDAY, April 5, 2007, 10 p.m.

Lynch or Olsen?
Rob Rang of The Sports Xchange participated in an online chat at USAToday.com and discussed the Green Bay Packers’ options in the NFL draft.

The question posed to Rang centered on whether the Packers would select California running back Marshawn Lynch or Miami (Fla.) tight end Greg Olsen if both players were still available in the first round.

Said Rang: “Lynch would fill a bigger hole, in my opinion, and is a better fit for what Green Bay does. That said, if there is one pick that everyone seems to agree on in mock drafts it is the Packers taking Lynch. Because of this fact, I think it most likely won't happen. Ted Thompson is an excellent judge of talent and has as good of a poker face as anyone in the business. Running back and tight ends are clear needs for the Packers, but Thompson will take the best available player, positional needs be damned.”

PACKmanN
04-06-2007, 12:21 AM
Anything can happen draft day. I cant wait :) i need a draft patch lol :)

johbur
04-06-2007, 01:47 AM
THURSDAY, April 5, 2007, 10 p.m.

Lynch or Olsen?
Rob Rang of The Sports Xchange participated in an online chat at USAToday.com and discussed the Green Bay Packers’ options in the NFL draft.

The question posed to Rang centered on whether the Packers would select California running back Marshawn Lynch or Miami (Fla.) tight end Greg Olsen if both players were still available in the first round.

Said Rang: “Lynch would fill a bigger hole, in my opinion, and is a better fit for what Green Bay does. That said, if there is one pick that everyone seems to agree on in mock drafts it is the Packers taking Lynch. Because of this fact, I think it most likely won't happen. Ted Thompson is an excellent judge of talent and has as good of a poker face as anyone in the business. Running back and tight ends are clear needs for the Packers, but Thompson will take the best available player, positional needs be damned.”

Nice article. I agree with TT on this, and if you have a particular player that is graded higher than in your need positions, you take that player. Lynch and Olsen meet needs, and I favor Olsen, but if Landry or Okoye slide down, then you take them if they are tops on your board. If Levi Brown is there at #16, TT has to think about him even with our current tackle situation being OK.

princefielder28
04-06-2007, 06:08 AM
Nice article. I agree with TT on this, and if you have a particular player that is graded higher than in your need positions, you take that player. Lynch and Olsen meet needs, and I favor Olsen, but if Landry or Okoye slide down, then you take them if they are tops on your board. If Levi Brown is there at #16, TT has to think about him even with our current tackle situation being OK.

Landry would be a need as well but if Brown was available we wouldn't take him.

princefielder28
04-06-2007, 07:27 AM
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=587461

Take it for what it is; I guess no suprises

Severe Punishment
04-06-2007, 12:32 PM
I have this weird feeling that Lorenzo Booker is going to end up
being a Packer. I think FS shouldn't be so quickly cast aside if
Landry isn't there. You have to put both Griffin and Nelson "in the mix"
when talking about potential 1st round draft picks.

JF4
04-06-2007, 12:39 PM
I hope by FS you meant SS, because at FS I think we are pretty set with Nick Collins.

Severe Punishment
04-06-2007, 12:41 PM
Ummm I did put FS and not SS

JF4
04-06-2007, 01:11 PM
Ok I was just wondering if you made a mistake or something....Why do you think we should cast away Nick Collins, who looks like he will become a pretty good player in the NFL, for an unproven rookie? Or do you think something like moving Collins to SS?

Boston
04-06-2007, 01:13 PM
Ok I was just wondering if you made a mistake or something....Why do you think we should cast away Nick Collins, who looks like he will become a pretty good player in the NFL, for an unproven rookie? Or do you think something like moving Collins to SS?

He probably doesn't know who Collins is.

princefielder28
04-06-2007, 01:55 PM
He probably doesn't know who Collins is.

He knows who Collins is and how much Manuel sucks

PACKmanN
04-06-2007, 01:57 PM
Ok I was just wondering if you made a mistake or something....Why do you think we should cast away Nick Collins, who looks like he will become a pretty good player in the NFL, for an unproven rookie? Or do you think something like moving Collins to SS?

Collins has to much skills to be moved to SS

what do u guys think of my new sig?

roughrider30
04-06-2007, 02:41 PM
Collins has to much skills to be moved to SS

what do u guys think of my new sig?

I like how harris looks, but the red on the sides might be a little much. It kinda takes away from him, but all in all it looks pretty sweet.

Boston
04-06-2007, 03:03 PM
Collins has to much skills to be moved to SS

what do u guys think of my new sig?

To tell you the truth, and not to sound like an ass, i don't really like it. The picture's good, as is the font, but why red? It takes away from the picture, and it's too thick.

princefielder28
04-06-2007, 03:26 PM
To tell you the truth, and not to sound like an ass, i don't really like it. The picture's good, as is the font, but why red? It takes away from the picture, and it's too thick.

The red defeats the purpose of whats in the sig

JF4
04-06-2007, 04:24 PM
The red defeats the purpose of whats in the sig

Exactly what I think.

jag
04-06-2007, 05:41 PM
Hey, do you guys know if its possible to get tickets for a pre-season game? I heard the Jaguars are playing in Green Bay for one of there games, and I thought it's worth looking into.

GB12
04-06-2007, 05:44 PM
Hey, do you guys know if its possible to get tickets for a pre-season game? I heard the Jaguars are playing in Green Bay for one of there games, and I thought it's worth looking into.

It's not as hard to get as regular season tickets but it is still very hard to get. The fans that can't get tickets usually scoop up the preseasons. Your best bet would to go to get them from a scalper, but since you are in Minnesota you might not want to risk the trip.

NAVY
04-06-2007, 09:20 PM
The tickets will be available through ticket brokers....I got 4 last year on the 40 yard line for about $170 each

jackalope
04-06-2007, 09:54 PM
Nice article. I agree with TT on this, and if you have a particular player that is graded higher than in your need positions, you take that player. Lynch and Olsen meet needs, and I favor Olsen, but if Landry or Okoye slide down, then you take them if they are tops on your board. If Levi Brown is there at #16, TT has to think about him even with our current tackle situation being OK.I agree that if a player like Okoye or Landry happen to fall we should take them despite bigger needs. However i don't like the idea of taking a player such as Brown just because of good value. We wouldn't be able to use him, or if we did we wouldn't be using another player on the team. I agree with BPA, but only to a point.

princefielder28
04-06-2007, 10:33 PM
The tickets will be available through ticket brokers....I got 4 last year on the 40 yard line for about $170 each

Thats pretty resonable for the 40

neko4
04-06-2007, 11:03 PM
Nice article. I agree with TT on this, and if you have a particular player that is graded higher than in your need positions, you take that player. Lynch and Olsen meet needs, and I favor Olsen, but if Landry or Okoye slide down, then you take them if they are tops on your board. If Levi Brown is there at #16, TT has to think about him even with our current tackle situation being OK.

OK?
We have 4 guys that can start there(Clifton,Tauscher,Moll, and Barry) and one can be a pro bowler any given year. Levi Brown would be a terrible pick

princefielder28
04-06-2007, 11:21 PM
OK?
We have 4 guys that can start there(Clifton,Tauscher,Moll, and Barry) and one can be a pro bowler any given year. Levi Brown would be a terrible pick

If we chose Levi that would be a big time mistake b/c last year we drafted three guys that can start and we have a young center and in the future we jjust need to add another tackle but not this year with all our needs

neko4
04-07-2007, 05:17 AM
Koren Robinson...if he comes back does that change the draft. I think he has a chance of being the #3 or atleast make it tough for Martin to keep the job.

princefielder28
04-07-2007, 08:16 AM
Koren Robinson...if he comes back does that change the draft. I think he has a chance of being the #3 or atleast make it tough for Martin to keep the job.

Theres no guaruntees with Koren so yes the wide receiver position does need to be addressed. If Koren comes back successfully I think Ferguson will be the odd man out with Martin being the 5th wideout.

umphrey
04-07-2007, 10:46 AM
I thought Krob was suspended for awhile still ?

jpapa4490
04-07-2007, 11:06 AM
He will be back on the field by early october

ny10804
04-07-2007, 11:09 AM
Robinson is under contract for the '07 season, but suspended for (I believe) the first 4 games of the season. McCarthy has said he's not counting on him to be a big part of the offense, ie, the team won't make plans with him in mind.

jpapa4490
04-07-2007, 11:11 AM
You should check out Packerupdate.com they have a story about him on there

princefielder28
04-07-2007, 11:28 AM
You should check out Packerupdate.com they have a story about him on there

ok, thanks

jag
04-07-2007, 12:40 PM
It's not as hard to get as regular season tickets but it is still very hard to get. The fans that can't get tickets usually scoop up the preseasons. Your best bet would to go to get them from a scalper, but since you are in Minnesota you might not want to risk the trip.

It's like a five hour drive, and the Jaguars are playing there, so it's really tempting. What are the odds with the Scalpers though? How much do they normally charge?

Jim Jim
04-07-2007, 01:26 PM
I still believe first day draft needs are DB, WR and HB.

johbur
04-08-2007, 01:17 AM
OK?
We have 4 guys that can start there(Clifton,Tauscher,Moll, and Barry) and one can be a pro bowler any given year. Levi Brown would be a terrible pick

I bet the same thing was said about the Guard situation three years ago.

Clifton is signed through 2009, but if the team doesn't like his performance/price tag, there could be a change in the making. What's he making in '08 and '09? Two years ago he was not good. Last year, I thought he was very good.

Tauscher is signed through 2008. What's his '08 salary? I would like to see Tauscher extended until 2010. Stat wise, as far as pressure and bad plays given up, he had his worst year last year.

If the team likes Colledge at guard for this scheme, then you do not have four LTs. Kevin Barry will not be on the team this year. You have Clifton, with prior injury and getting up in years, at LT, backed up by Tony Moll. Or, if they do not think that Moll is solid at LT, then you have either Tauscher or Colledge moving out of position and having two positions effected by one injury.

Do I think they'd necessarily take Brown at #16? No, but he'd be an excellent value there and could allow the team to either trade him to a tackle needy team like AZ (not convinced Gandy helps them much) or consider moving Clifton or having his back-up ready if he slumps.

PACKmanN
04-08-2007, 01:34 AM
I bet the same thing was said about the Guard situation three years ago.

Clifton is signed through 2009, but if the team doesn't like his performance/price tag, there could be a change in the making. What's he making in '08 and '09? Two years ago he was not good. Last year, I thought he was very good.

Tauscher is signed through 2008. What's his '08 salary? I would like to see Tauscher extended until 2010. Stat wise, as far as pressure and bad plays given up, he had his worst year last year.

If the team likes Colledge at guard for this scheme, then you do not have four LTs. Kevin Barry will not be on the team this year. You have Clifton, with prior injury and getting up in years, at LT, backed up by Tony Moll. Or, if they do not think that Moll is solid at LT, then you have either Tauscher or Colledge moving out of position and having two positions effected by one injury.

Do I think they'd necessarily take Brown at #16? No, but he'd be an excellent value there and could allow the team to either trade him to a tackle needy team like AZ (not convinced Gandy helps them much) or consider moving Clifton or having his back-up ready if he slumps.
I understand that you are worry about the oline but no thanks to taking a OT at 16. I belive TT drafted Colledege to play LT. IMO he should add 10-20 more pounds of muscle and then we move him to LT. We later on with our 2nd round pick draft Grubbs and we can send Cilfton to AZI for there 2nd and possible there 4th. Finally someone else agrees with me that our 2 vets did more terrible blocking then our young guys did.

princefielder28
04-08-2007, 06:43 AM
I understand that you are worry about the oline but no thanks to taking a OT at 16. I belive TT drafted Colledege to play LT. IMO he should add 10-20 more pounds of muscle and then we move him to LT. We later on with our 2nd round pick draft Grubbs and we can send Cilfton to AZI for there 2nd and possible there 4th. Finally someone else agrees with me that our 2 vets did more terrible blocking then our young guys did.

First of all the Packers are not going to trade Chad Clifton and the problems we had last year with our O-Line came from Colledge at times but Spitz opening the door for a DT to come right through the middle without much of a struggle.

GB12
04-08-2007, 08:33 AM
First of all the Packers are not going to trade Chad Clifton.

Right, and there is no way arizon would give up a second and 4th. A2nd would be out of the question. 3rd maybe, but not at 5 like Arizona has.

jackalope
04-08-2007, 12:26 PM
I don't see any reason in switching our line around. I think that we're set for this year and next at least. If we need a future tackle i trust TT to find someone in the later rounds that we can develop, but right now there's no point in spending a first day pick on an O-linemen.

JF4
04-08-2007, 12:28 PM
I don't see any reason in switching our line around. I think that we're set for this year and next at least. If we need a future tackle i trust TT to find someone in the later rounds that we can develop, but right now there's no point in spending a first day pick on an O-linemen.

I feel the same way, we did draft 3 OL in last years draft and two of them we're first day picks.

PACKmanN
04-08-2007, 09:43 PM
man is everyone borad or what...

neko4
04-09-2007, 12:38 AM
I don't see any reason in switching our line around. I think that we're set for this year and next at least. If we need a future tackle i trust TT to find someone in the later rounds that we can develop, but right now there's no point in spending a first day pick on an O-linemen.

Seriously, why spend money on a first when wecan just draft one in the 6th or 7th and develop him

neko4
04-09-2007, 12:40 AM
Heres how my draft turned out on the game
Draft Picks
2nd 15th Tony Hunt HB
2rd 16th Justin Durant LB
2rd 22nd Sabby Piscitelli S
4rd 16th Travarous Bain CB
5th 11th Matt Spaeth TE
5th 21th Dan Santucci OG
7th 15th Conrad Bolston DT
7rd 19th Justin Rascatti QB
7rd 25th Germaine Race HB/FB

I was mostly drafting for fun so its not my greatest work

johbur
04-09-2007, 01:43 AM
I don't see any reason in switching our line around. I think that we're set for this year and next at least. If we need a future tackle i trust TT to find someone in the later rounds that we can develop, but right now there's no point in spending a first day pick on an O-linemen.

My point on this is that TT is a value driven GM that has shown the tendency to absorb the best player available, and that if his board does not show value at that selection then he trades down.

I was so pissed last year when we had the two higher 2nds, and we could have had Chad Jackson and that CB that went to Atlanta. He obviously did not like their value there and traded down with both selections. The players he got turned out to be solid picks and were the tops on his board. His board is different than other people's boards, though, as the Tony Moll selection shows.

I don't think he'll take an OT in R1, but if his board has Levi Brown as a top 10 player, and he doesn't like the players available at #16 and cannot trade down, I would not be surprised to see him take a guy like Brown. I appreciate that he goes by hi board and also understands that for the past couple years he's needed quantity as much as quality. Maybe this year he'll just take the BPA or even trade up, though he's never done that before.

PACKmanN
04-09-2007, 01:46 AM
Heres how my draft turned out on the game
Draft Picks
2nd 15th Tony Hunt HB
2rd 16th Justin Durant LB
2rd 22nd Sabby Piscitelli S
4rd 16th Travarous Bain CB
5th 11th Matt Spaeth TE
5th 21th Dan Santucci OG
7th 15th Conrad Bolston DT
7rd 19th Justin Rascatti QB
7rd 25th Germaine Race HB/FB

I was mostly drafting for fun so its not my greatest work

how did u put the players name in the game, and its madden right?

roughrider30
04-09-2007, 12:55 PM
how did u put the players name in the game, and its madden right?

If its Madden you can import rosters from NCAA and you can put in the players names in NCAA.

neko4
04-10-2007, 09:41 AM
how did u put the players name in the game, and its madden right?

no a draft game on the forum


also.....



we need to defend our King aka favre
http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6154

polocrums
04-10-2007, 11:19 AM
Barnett signs long term contract extension

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/04/10/bc.fbn.packers.barnett.ap/

RockJock07
04-10-2007, 01:13 PM
Will PacMan Jones being suspended for a year, do you guys think Koren Robinson will be suspended for any more time? Is he suspended for 4 games next season? I forgot what the amount was.

The Barrnett singing is a really smart move and the biggest move TT has made so far, but the draft is 3 weeks away so i'm ready to see what happens with Randy Moss. I still don't think that's he's out of the question.

princefielder28
04-10-2007, 02:07 PM
Will PacMan Jones being suspended for a year, do you guys think Koren Robinson will be suspended for any more time? Is he suspended for 4 games next season? I forgot what the amount was.

The Barrnett singing is a really smart move and the biggest move TT has made so far, but the draft is 3 weeks away so i'm ready to see what happens with Randy Moss. I still don't think that's he's out of the question.

Koren Robinson will serve the time that he's been penalized and that'll be it; no chance Goodell goes after him next

PACKmanN
04-10-2007, 06:17 PM
Looks like Mike Williams might be cut soon, should we go after him? maybe a one year deal?

princefielder28
04-10-2007, 06:25 PM
Looks like Mike Williams might be cut soon, should we go after him? maybe a one year deal?

If we would pick him up it would probably be to take the role of a passing catching TE

RockJock07
04-10-2007, 08:05 PM
Fielder, how long will Koren be suspensed for going in to next season, is it 4 games, I can't remember.

princefielder28
04-10-2007, 08:09 PM
Fielder, how long will Koren be suspensed for going in to next season, is it 4 games, I can't remember.

I believe that's the correct amount of games

Edit: First day of reinstatement into the NFL is 9/18/2007

johbur
04-11-2007, 02:20 AM
I am hoping Koren stays in shape and that he comes in and provides a lift to the receiving/return game. He was sorely missed last year after he went out on both fronts. Odd to think he might have been the piece that took the Packers to the playoffs, but if he wasn't damaged goods he would still be a queen.

GB12
04-11-2007, 01:14 PM
Schedule!!!
Sept. 9, Philadelphia Eagles, noon, FOX
Sept. 16, @ New York Giants, noon, FOX
Sept. 23, San Diego Chargers (Gold Pkg.), noon, CBS
Sept. 30, @ Minnesota Vikings, noon, FOX
Oct. 7, Chicago Bears, 7:15 p.m., NBC
Oct. 14, Washington Redskins 12 noon, FOX
Oct. 21, Open Date
Oct. 29, @ Denver Broncos, 7:30 p.m., ESPN
Nov. 4, @ Kansas City Chiefs, noon, FOX
Nov. 11, Minnesota Vikings (Gold Pkg.), noon, FOX
Nov. 18, Carolina Panthers, *noon, FOX
Nov. 22, @ Detroit Lions (Thanksgiving), 11:30 a.m., FOX
Nov. 29, @ Dallas Cowboys, 7:15 p.m., NFLN
Dec. 9, Oakland Raiders, *noon, CBS
Dec. 16, @ St. Louis Rams, * noon, FOX
Dec. 23, @ Chicago Bears, *noon, FOX
Dec. 30, Detroit Lions, *noon, FOX

Besides our 4 national games we have all noon games! I don't like starting with Philly, I like playing them somewhere in the middle like usual.

princefielder28
04-11-2007, 02:26 PM
I like how we have Oakland and Detroit later in the year

neko4
04-11-2007, 02:38 PM
I dont like playing Philly at all!

princefielder28
04-11-2007, 02:39 PM
I dont like playing Philly at all!

We have to play that entire division which really isn't a treat. Dallas is tough, Philly is tougher, Washington played well at the end of the year, and the Giants still have talented players that can win games

Moses
04-11-2007, 03:16 PM
That schedule sure is a lot tougher than last season.

JF4
04-11-2007, 03:35 PM
It should be a nice test right off the bat, our first three games are against three probable playoff teams. The first half of the schedule is alot harder than the 2nd half IMO.

princefielder28
04-11-2007, 04:14 PM
It should be a nice test right off the bat, our first three games are against three probable playoff teams. The first half of the schedule is alot harder than the 2nd half IMO.

Which will be good if we can get through the first half atleast at .500 and then play better in the 2nd half

GB12
04-11-2007, 04:16 PM
I guess Donovan could still be out at the begining of the season.

neko4
04-11-2007, 04:26 PM
I guess Donovan could still be out at the begining of the season.

I think it could really be his last year

GB12
04-11-2007, 06:03 PM
I hope we actually do throwbacks this year instead of just changing the facemask to gray.
Id like to see these http://image.bizrate.com/resize?sq=160&uid=446969391&mid=105250

But these would be ok too. I think we did have these a couple years agohttp://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Stadium/3028/Packers39uni.jpg

princefielder28
04-11-2007, 07:00 PM
I hope we actually do throwbacks this year instead of just changing the facemask to gray.
Id like to see these http://image.bizrate.com/resize?sq=160&uid=446969391&mid=105250

But these would be ok too. I think we did have these a couple years agohttp://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Stadium/3028/Packers39uni.jpg

those aren't bad uniforms

bearsfan_51
04-11-2007, 07:42 PM
Thankfully the Sunday night game against the dreaded cheese comes on Columbus Day weekend, meaning tanked up packer fans making the trip can sleep it off in the back seat of their rusty Valiant without worrying about missing their Monday shift at the rendering plant.

princefielder28
04-11-2007, 08:14 PM
Thankfully the Sunday night game against the dreaded cheese comes on Columbus Day weekend, meaning tanked up packer fans making the trip can sleep it off in the back seat of their rusty Valiant without worrying about missing their Monday shift at the rendering plant.

And Bears fan can cry after their loss! HAHA!

Mwkick
04-11-2007, 08:31 PM
U got him with that one prince! haha

princefielder28
04-11-2007, 08:32 PM
U got him with that one prince! haha

Thank you, Thank you

JF4
04-11-2007, 10:42 PM
I hope we actually do throwbacks this year instead of just changing the facemask to gray.
Id like to see these http://image.bizrate.com/resize?sq=160&uid=446969391&mid=105250

But these would be ok too. I think we did have these a couple years agohttp://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Stadium/3028/Packers39uni.jpg

The one's with the link are my favourite jersey's ever. I never understood why they don't use them occasionally. We all know that the last time they wore them Brett Favre ran for a 50 yard TD.

neko4
04-11-2007, 10:49 PM
I like both of those too, plus those goldish(faded yellowish) pants are cool

PACKmanN
04-11-2007, 10:51 PM
I hope we actually do throwbacks this year instead of just changing the facemask to gray.
Id like to see these http://image.bizrate.com/resize?sq=160&uid=446969391&mid=105250

But these would be ok too. I think we did have these a couple years agohttp://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Stadium/3028/Packers39uni.jpg

sorry thoses look ugly. I would rather let them wear the ones that we wore when we won the SB.

johbur
04-11-2007, 11:04 PM
Ugly schedule. The back to back Thursdays worries me in that they are both road games and the schedule change could throw the team off.

They play some tough teams early so they cannot afford the early season slump they've been doing the past couple of years.

neko4
04-12-2007, 01:51 PM
Scotts new mock looks real good

princefielder28
04-12-2007, 02:23 PM
Scotts new mock looks real good

Best one for Green Bay ever!!!!

GB12
04-12-2007, 02:25 PM
Scotts new mock looks real good

I love it, that's the draft I have been hoping for for a while.

RockJock07
04-12-2007, 02:58 PM
I agree, the mock takes care of 3 needs right off the bat. Allison is very solid, I watched him in their bowl game vs. USF and he was solid. Although his agent is "the SharK" so the Pack will have to deal with that down the road. I hope it wouldn't come down to a javon walker thing if allison is drafted by the pack.

I'm still wondering if TT has another big move coming.

neko4
04-12-2007, 03:11 PM
I would much rather have a S in the 3rd, but Underwood could be the guy

JF4
04-12-2007, 04:19 PM
I would much rather have a S in the 3rd, but Underwood could be the guy

I would like it if we adressed a defensive need in one of the first 3 rounds but if we get a WR like Allison i'd be fine if we didn't.

GB12
04-12-2007, 05:19 PM
I would much rather have a S in the 3rd, but Underwood could be the guy

Like I have been saying, drafting a safety later than two would be a waste. Really I think it is the first round or not at all, but I say 2 for the event Merriwether is available.

jackalope
04-12-2007, 05:31 PM
Scotts new mock looks real goodyeah, I'm really hoping it turns our like that.

gbpackers0065
04-12-2007, 05:32 PM
i think a TE cuts down the need for allison in round 3

Moses
04-12-2007, 05:34 PM
i think a TE cuts down the need for allison in round 3

WR is a huge need. Driver is aging and he's really the only consistent option the Packers have. Jennings has shown flashes but his consistency still needs to develop. After those starting two, there is nobody basically. Bringing in somebody on day one is very necessary and more of a need than safety.

princefielder28
04-12-2007, 07:12 PM
i think a TE cuts down the need for allison in round 3

Allison would be a steal if we got him in round 3 and he would make the offense more dynamic.

PACKmanN
04-12-2007, 11:18 PM
I was watching Best Damn and they had Greg Olsen as a guest. They asked him if he ever talked with former great Miami TE (Winslow, Shockey, and Franks) he said he met Winslow with he was in his frist year, he has spoken to Shockey and has worked out with Franks down in Maimi. Maybe Franks can get some inside info on him to help us out and when i saw him i wanted him to play for the packers even more.

johbur
04-13-2007, 03:43 AM
WR is a huge need. Driver is aging and he's really the only consistent option the Packers have. Jennings has shown flashes but his consistency still needs to develop. After those starting two, there is nobody basically. Bringing in somebody on day one is very necessary and more of a need than safety.

A Day One WR would be nice, with my faves being Dwayne Jarrett, Tedd Ginn and Robert Meachem in that order. That being said, a later round WR could be had perhaps in Jacoby ar Naanae. With the WCO, a top nothc WR has not been required, but with Favre's declining skill set, it wouldn't hurt. I would like to get a big guy, preferably a faster big guy, as DD and Jennings both smaller.

Safety is more of a need for this upcoming year. Rookie safeties have done very well, where as few rookie WRs have done much. That is one reason I like Ginn, as he'd laso upgrade the Special Teams.

Nitschke-Hawk
04-13-2007, 05:31 PM
Our computer crashed back in February and we finally got a new one, it's good to be back!

princefielder28
04-13-2007, 05:35 PM
A Day One WR would be nice, with my faves being Dwayne Jarrett, Tedd Ginn and Robert Meachem in that order. That being said, a later round WR could be had perhaps in Jacoby ar Naanae. With the WCO, a top nothc WR has not been required, but with Favre's declining skill set, it wouldn't hurt. I would like to get a big guy, preferably a faster big guy, as DD and Jennings both smaller.

Safety is more of a need for this upcoming year. Rookie safeties have done very well, where as few rookie WRs have done much. That is one reason I like Ginn, as he'd laso upgrade the Special Teams.

Did you happen to see Ginn's 40??? Plus, he not the largest target either and if he doesn't have the speed to out run DBs, then he's pretty much useless

The Legend
04-13-2007, 09:15 PM
Did you happen to see Ginn's 40??? Plus, he not the largest target either and if he doesn't have the speed to out run DBs, then he's pretty much useless


Ginn could not run i belive

[also its good to be back]

princefielder28
04-13-2007, 09:20 PM
Ginn could not run i belive

[also its good to be back]

He ran 3 times and he looked like crap. Certainly not a player I want in a Packers uni regardless of how healthy he is.

Boston
04-13-2007, 09:20 PM
Did you happen to see Ginn's 40??? Plus, he not the largest target either and if he doesn't have the speed to out run DBs, then he's pretty much useless

Are you kidding me? You need a 40 yard dash to tell you Ginn is fast. *Slow laugh*

The Legend
04-13-2007, 09:29 PM
Running back Marshawn Lynch Coming To Town

http://www.packersnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070413/PKR01/70413187/1989

“It makes sense,” Hendrickson said of the Packers’ interest in Lynch. “The question is does he get that far (in the draft)?”

Hendrickson said his client visited the Atlanta Falcons on Thursday. The Falcons have the eighth overall pick.

“Buffalo is at No. 12, and they obviously need a running back,” Hendrickson said. “Tennessee (at No. 19) might to have jump up.”
The Packers remain interested in free-agent cornerback Tory James but no signing appears imminent.

His agent, Mark Bartelstein, said on Friday several teams, including the Packers, continue to show interest in the 12-year veteran. James played the last four seasons for the Cincinnati Bengals.

princefielder28
04-13-2007, 09:31 PM
Are you kidding me? You need a 40 yard dash to tell you Ginn is fast. *Slow laugh*

To prove that he can outrun DBs and if he can't do that then he's pretty much useless. No???

Moses
04-13-2007, 09:33 PM
To prove that he can outrun DBs and if he can't do that then he's pretty much useless. No???

I think it's pretty clear that Ginn Jr. can outrun DBs. That would be blatantly obvious if you watched him in college. It's like saying that you need to see Reggie Bush's 40 time to prove he's fast.

princefielder28
04-13-2007, 09:36 PM
I think it's pretty clear that Ginn Jr. can outrun DBs. That would be blatantly obvious if you watched him in college. It's like saying that you need to see Reggie Bush's 40 time to prove he's fast.

You don't get it b/c in the Big Ten there were very few quality CBs and Leon Hall doesn't possess great speed. In the NFL they are world class athletes that can run with him every step of the way and if doesn't have a big speed difference than a DB then he's really no benefit to a team; ala Troy Williamson

Mwkick
04-13-2007, 09:36 PM
Fielder I love yoru posts, but you're way off on this one. Ginn has world class speed....believe it. He's still recovering from the ankle injury. He couldn't complete half the drills because it was still affecting him.
I'm sorry, but if you watched any of their games, you'd see this.
Too many people put the blinders on and strictly look at combine results. Mike Mamula anyone???

Boston
04-13-2007, 09:37 PM
To prove that he can outrun DBs and if he can't do that then he's pretty much useless. No???

You should already know Ginn is fast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mmbbPKL3uc

Just in case you've forgotten.

Boston
04-13-2007, 09:40 PM
You don't get it b/c in the Big Ten there were very few quality CBs and Leon Hall doesn't possess great speed. In the NFL they are world class athletes that can run with him every step of the way and if doesn't have a big speed difference than a DB then he's really no benefit to a team; ala Troy Williamson

You make it sound as if every DB in the NFL is as fast as Ginn, when in reality, few are.

Mwkick
04-13-2007, 09:41 PM
Just read his bio on the rankings!!!!!

"Has been timed at 10.5 seconds in the 100 meter dash...Was a national champion in the 110 high hurdles as a junior and recorded the best time in the nation as a senior..."

I'm sorry but he's fast. May not have had the best workout, but the guy can return kicks. Did you watch the national championship game???? That wasn't a Big Ten opponent and he took the opening kick to the house...

princefielder28
04-13-2007, 09:41 PM
You should already know Ginn is fast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mmbbPKL3uc

Just in case you've forgotten.

So you're tellingmme you would love to spend a 1st rounder on a special teamer b/c I didn't see him outrun any DBs in the first 3 minutes except for Indiana and they're pathetic

princefielder28
04-13-2007, 09:42 PM
Just read his bio on the rankings!!!!!

"Has been timed at 10.5 seconds in the 100 meter dash...Was a national champion in the 110 high hurdles as a junior and recorded the best time in the nation as a senior..."

I'm sorry but he's fast. May not have had the best workout, but the guy can return kicks. Did you watch the national championship game???? That wasn't a Big Ten opponent and he took the opening kick to the house...

Again, you gonna spend a 1st round pick on a special teamer????

Mwkick
04-13-2007, 09:42 PM
I'm not tryin to sound negative, but do you watch college football???

Mwkick
04-13-2007, 09:43 PM
Knowing what you know now, would you ahve spent a first rounder on Devin Hester?????

princefielder28
04-13-2007, 09:45 PM
I'm not tryin to sound negative, but do you watch college football???

What is that suppose to mean??? I watched Ohio State play and I see that Troy Smith and Ted Ginn were two of the most overrated players in the game translating to the NFL and discuss this with people at school and they think I'm nuts. Look at where Troy Smith is as he has fallen off the face of the earth and other than special teams Ginn really doesn't bring much to the table.

GB12
04-13-2007, 09:46 PM
I don't think you can deny that Ginn has great speed. However I want no part of him on the Packers.

Boston
04-13-2007, 09:46 PM
So you're tellingmme you would love to spend a 1st rounder on a special teamer b/c I didn't see him outrun any DBs in the first 3 minutes except for Indiana and they're pathetic

I never said the packers should draft Ginn in the first round. His draft position wasn't a part of our arguement. But to answer your question, no, i personally wouldn't at 16. Maybe at 20-25.

Special teams has become a key part in the NFL, see Hester, and the Packers is lackluster at best.

Mwkick
04-13-2007, 09:47 PM
Maybe Ginn isn't the answer but if he were anything like Hester, why not spend a 1st round pick on him???

princefielder28
04-13-2007, 09:48 PM
Maybe Ginn isn't the answer but if he were anything like Hester, why not spend a 1st round pick on him???

The odds that he makes an impact like Devin Hester is next to none

princefielder28
04-13-2007, 09:49 PM
I don't think you can deny that Ginn has great speed. However I want no part of him on the Packers.

He has great speed but it's not elite where he can outrun everyone in the NFL and not the NCAA