Tundra Vision

The Role of Packer Bloggers

noreply@blogger.com (C.D. Angeli) — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:15:00 +0000

I've been pondering the role of how we, as Packer bloggers, "fit" into the grand scheme of the Packer Universe. Of course, what has prompted much of my thought is the activities of the Packer blogger who is often most willing to push the envelope, CheeseheadTV's Aaron Nagler.

It started innocuously enough on Wednesday, when Nagler wrote an article about how the Packers' top players need to "improve from within" as much as our developing young players. However, Nagler chose to tweet a link to the article directly to Aaron Rodgers, whom he picked apart in his article. Even more shocking, Rodgers chose to tweet back, almost immediately, to chastise Nagler's nitpickiness.

AN: For @AaronRodgers12 - because I send you the praise, I have to send you the criticism as
well: http://bit.ly/bjhEon
AR: interesting basing an entire article on one play however poor that play may have been
AN: Just an example. There are a few others, which I'm sure you are aware. Again, I know its a
nitpick. Just call it as I see it
AR: as do I. I'm my biggest critic n that play n some others def sucked. But I think ur a better
writer than that
AN: Clearly, the Packers don't share your appraisal of my writing prowess. But that means a lot
coming from QB1. Thanks.

Now, just between you and me, I'd be thrilled if Aaron Rodgers responded to me on Twitter, which is why so many of us follow celebrities in such a way...the mere thought of a brush with greatness is exciting, to think that our heroes may glance our direction and give us a passing remark. The thought of Marcia Brady "I'll never wash that hand again" after having it kissed by Davy Jones comes to mind...

But Rodgers did more than just give a passing remark, he offered critique, Later on, after Nagler offered to meet up with Rodgers for an "off the record" chat, in part to explain his article, Rodgers laughed it off, saying that is the same line he hears from the media.

Which, I'm sure, put both Nagler in a funny position...are Packer bloggers "the media"? If anyone has read my blog over the last five years or so, they should know that I am quite critical of the media, so much so that I would regard being called "the media" as some sort of crack.

Last night, with Nagler as one of our guests on Cheesehead Radio (along with the incomparable Corey Behnke), we spoke with him about it. When Holly pointed out the number of positive articles Aaron had written about him, he bemoaned Rodgers' voice in his head, "You're a much better writer when you're praising me." Yet, he still wished for an opportunity to be able to have access with Rodgers, in order to explain where he was coming from. "(Jason) Wilde was saying 'Yeah, I had a...back and forth thing with [Rodgers] about the pad thing with Dez Bryant and rookie hazing,' and I said, 'Yeah, Jason, but you can go into the locker room on Saturday and talk with him about it, and explain yourself. I've got no access.'"

So, it begs the question: are we fans or are we now part of the media, but with a disability? Do we want to be? Behnke, who was down on the Shareholder meeting field with a press pass, posited last night on Cheesehead Radio, "as soon as we have access, all of the sudden we're reporters. It was funny, because instead of being fans about the experience, we were like, 'Oh, we have a responsibility now.'"

Honestly, when I was in high school, I seriously thought about going into journalism because I loved to write. But, I changed my intended major my senior year, justifying it in believing that I could always write on the side...doing what I would love, when I wanted to. What turned me away was seeing what a "job" being a reporter or even a columnist could be...deadlines, schedules, assignments that don't appeal to you.

So, fast-forward to 2005, when I started writing my Packer blogs, first over at PackerChatters, and now at TundraVision. Why? Because I loved it. I loved the Packers. I loved writing. I loved writing about the Packers. It's a passion. I love taking one of the many ideas floating around in my head and turning it into a five-page essay. No deadlines, no one editing my work, and most of all, doing what I love.

In many ways, I think that is what separates the bloggers from the media (other than the obvious lack of access). I was stunned when then-Press-Gazette beat writer Tom Pelliserro mentioned on an episode of Cheesehead Nation's blogcast that he was not a Packer fan. How could you live in Green Bay and not be a fan? For that matter, how can you write about the Packers everyday and have all that access and not be a fan?

But going around the horn, you see that very few of the Packer beat writers claim any allegiance to the Green and Gold. Jason Wilde himself said he isn't a fan, and Greg Bedard was a Miami Dolphin beat writer for years before coming to Wisconsin. And, in truth, that is probably the way it should be for the media: staying neutral and unbiased is the right way to report the news. Just present the facts, whether it be good news or bad news, as a third-party observer with no real emotional investment. In fact, it is the journalists that have shown emotional biases, such as Mike Vandermause, that end up polarizing the readers.

So, where is the fun in that? You get to work alongside NFL players, but you remove the passion from the equation? Win or lose, you have your story to write the next day, and you get your paycheck? No wonder it is like a "job", and when Corey and Aaron talk about gaining more access while finding the responsibilities disconcerting, you have to wonder if those of us who want to be on the inside should be careful what we wish for.

Last year, Larry Garot of PackerChatters asked me if I would like to interview some Hall of Fame candidates as a part of their tour at the Vikings game. Being a complete neophyte when it came to being a member of the "media", I went in with some sort of pipe dream of sitting at a table across from Jan Stenerud, my childhood hero, and having a nice one-on-one discussion about life.

What I got was completely different, as you can imagine. Imagine slop being thrown down for farm animals, and you will get an idea of the mob of humanity and tape recorders that engulfed Stenerud when he stepped onto the stage. Questions shouted, people taking notes, jostling each other, then after about five minutes, they moved on to swarm Paul Krause. As Stenerud was being ushered away, I grabbed him, and asked for just a moment to speak with him. The impatient lackey kept tapping his watch as Stenerud politely answered my question about how he left Green Bay. But, I realized at that moment, I wasn't looking for a quote or an article or a story. I spoke with Jan Stenerud. It was a dream come true.

Most of the sweaty masses shouting questions at Krause weren't caught up in the moment of speaking with a childhood hero, but I was. As a blogger, I don't collect a paycheck, I don't get paid per line, and I am still waiting for my first $20 check to arrive from Google Ads, which I estimate should arrive around 2026.

The role of Packer bloggers should be that, first and foremost: we are the writers of passion. We are fans who write out of love, not out of duty. Sure, we all look to make a buck here and there, pay some of our server bills and maybe get a McDonald's lunch once a year from a sponsor or two.

Like any job that you love, you shouldn't feel like you're working when you do it. The role of the Packer blogger, utilizing social media and everything else that will be tweeting up in the future, is going to evolve and develop over the years (and I have no doubt that the boys at CheeseheadTV will be the ones leading the charge). But, do Packer bloggers have a duty to point out the flaws as well as the positive, or do we have the duty of being the positive leaders of the internet?

Hey, if you want fair-and-balanced, read the paper. If you want all-positive news, go to Packers.com. But as bloggers, we have the ability to shape our writing however we wish. If we choose to be rah-rahs, green-and-gold glasses die-hards, then that is what we will be...because we can. If we want to be fair and balanced, we can do that, too. Heck, if we want to be overly critical and Debbie Downers, that's an option. What is important is that we continue to write to follow our passions about the team.

Bob McGinn has little love for internet bloggers, according to several reports. And, you can guess why...people are turning to free internet sites for their news instead of buying their local paper. The more that bloggers try to emulate journalists, the more that feeling will exist. And some, such as Brian Carriveau, are actually excellent journalists in their own right (I've said that while I can write a lot about very little, Brian can write a little and actually say a lot).

The role of Packer Bloggers will indeed change as technology changes, which is very quickly. Five years ago, when I started writing, there was no Facebook, no Twitter, no BlogTalkRadio. Five years from now, there will be other technologies available to fans to get their message out to the masses.

But what will allow the fan blogs/tweets/podcasts to distinguish itself from mainstream media is the fact that we're allowed to be fans. The second we stop being fans and it becomes a job is the second we need to reevaluate our priorities. If you are a true Packer fan, your blog should only enhance your passion, not diminish it.

Does Thompson Have Positional Templates?

noreply@blogger.com (C.D. Angeli) — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:05:00 +0000

With the signing of tight end Andrew Quarrles last week, I've been giving some thought to what Packers General Manager Ted Thompson looks at when making his draft picks. This fifth-rounder we just signed in Quarrles reminds me rather of a third-round tight end he just picked up two drafts ago, a man by the name of JerMichael Finley. So much in their draft day writeups look similar: athletic pass-catcher, blocking-challenged, some issues with perhaps not being ready for the pro game right away, needs to mature.

Now, I don't bring this up to rail on Thompson or to rag on Finley, despite the fact that I was critical of the pick at the time (and have since admitted I was wrong). But, I am noticing that Thompson seems to have a template for players at certain positions, and likes bringing many of the same kind of guys into camp.

Some of this may be because of Thompson's proclaimed dedication to bringing in "Packer People", but it goes beyond the attitudinal perceptions that such a label leads you to believe: you can have clean-living, hard-working players that also are good blockers at the tight end position.

So, assuming that Donald Lee is slowly working his way out of Green Bay this preseason, the Packers may be looking at two athletic, pass-catching freaks at tight end this season. Is that a problem? Depends on your point of view.

You have to give Thompson the credit he has coming: he's an NFL GM that didn't get to where he is by guessing. If he has a prototype player in mind at a position, he certainly is going out there and getting guys to fill that role. It's clear that Thompson is seeing the TE spot as a weapon in the passing game moreso than having Ed "Toolbox" West doing dirty work in the trenches. If that is his plan on how the offense is going to look, he's definately getting guys who have the potential to be excellent in that role.

On the other hand, Thompson's prototype isn't necessarily the traditional prototype, where you have tight ends that are adept in both receiving and blocking, with perhaps blocking being the primary function and the receiving being the "bonus" contribution to the team. Or, your tight end tandem compliments one another: kind of like Chmura and Jackson back in the day. Whereas Chmura became the solid blocker and middle of the field possession receiver, Jackson was the touchdown maker.

Finley, to his credit, has developed in his maturity and in his blocking, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking he's a blocker first. Quarrles looks to be much in the same mold.

Another area that we see Thompson's Templates is at safety, including the guy many of us are hoping develops quickly, third-rounder Morgan Burnett. I was thrilled to see Thompson take a safety, but was quick to note that Burnett falls under the same safety template he's used since he arrived. Conventional safety prototypes would, again, utilize complimentary skills: a strong safety plays close to the line and provides run support, while a free safety plays back and provides over the top instinctive coverage.

But, Thompson has approached his safety template with both positions being interchangeable, and having similar talents in both spots. Thompson has brought in players who are all in the tough, hard-hitting strong safety mold: Marquand Manuel, Aaron Rouse, Atari Bigby, Jarrett Bush...even Nick Collins fits that mold while being shoehorned into the free safety spot. Now, Burnett brings a similar resume to the team: solid tackler, good athlete, aggressive, but lacks instinct and awareness.

Last preseason, Thompson released Anthony Smith, a veteran safety who seemed to bring a different element to the defensive backfield. Many were confused when he was let go, but looking back on it, Smith may not have fit what Thompson wanted back there. And, despite the concerns of the safety position when injury struck last season (as well as Bigby's "holdout" this offseason), many feel that Burnett may be able to step in and pick up where Bigby left off. The two may be interchangeable.

And there's that word: "interchangeable". Nowhere have we heard that term more than when discussing the offensive line as the Packers continue to implement the zone blocking scheme, and continue to bring in linemen that offer flexibility as a primary asset. Starting in 2006, when Thompson drafted Daryn Colledge, Jason Spitz, and Tony Moll, the Packers have seen their interior line become a game of musical chairs. Now, as aging tackles Mark Tauscher and Chad Clifton have been signed to lucrative short-term deals while waiting for someone to claim their starting spot, it's hard not to notice that Tauch and Cliffy have never been moved inside: they are tackles, period. When they finally hang up their cleats, there will be a glut of linemen that will be looking to "move outside" to play tackle. However, one of the guys many of us assumed would be the heir apparent is, well, apparently better suited at guard (emphasis mine):

Mike McCarthy said regarding TJ Lang, "I think T.J.’s long-term, this is just me personally, Joe Philbin, James Campen and Jerry Fontenot, we go round and round about it, I think T.J.’s long-term is at guard. I think he’s a natural left guard, when I look at his body. But he is young. He needs to develops strength to hit that. He is a very young second-year player. There’s a lot of room for development. But you can’t argue with the fact that he’s a more natural tackle because that’s where he has played. He feels more natural at tackle because that’s where he has played. I definitely feel he could play right tackle today if he had to. And I think he’s done a solid job at subbing in there at LT when needed."

Yet, the offensive line is loaded with players like Colledge, Lang, and Spitz...players who just can't seem to settle on a position and excel at it. And so, lesser-regarded players, such as Josh Sitton and Scott Wells, quietly establish themselves along the starting line because they plug in and do the job in one position and do it well.

Again, I don't bring these up to criticize Thompson's drafts. I do believe that he has a vision of what he wants his team to look like and he drafts accordingly. If it is a priority for Thompson to have interchangeable players, than that is his right as a general manager. He wants athletic, pass-catching tight ends, hard-hitting safeties, and flexible offensive linemen, and he goes out and gets them.

The other shoe, however, is that if we are in a position where we need solid run or pass blocking, where do we turn? If the defense is in dire need of a safety that has enough awareness to tighten their own coverage (as well as directing others to do the same), who do we have to do the job? If we need someone to fill in for an injured Mark Tauscher and keep Rodgers upright, do we have a tackle on the roster than can do the job?

It's not the games against the Lions that will magnify what you lack, it is the games against the Steelers and the Cardinals that bring your blemishes to light.

Cheesehead Radio Thursday Night!

noreply@blogger.com (C.D. Angeli) — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:24:00 +0000

Please join Holly Phelps, Jersey Al Bracco, Alex Tallisch, and C.D. Angeli this Thursday evening for another rousing episode of Packer talk on Cheesehead Radio. The show will be live over your internet connection from 8:00-9:00 CST.

Joining us this week will be Chris Lempesis of Ol' Bag of Donuts, a great Packer blog and, in particular, an author of some great offseason articles. I encourage you to check them out and then join us on Thursday as we have Chris pull up a chair and talk Packer football.

And, as usual, we will have a call-in session for Packer fans who want to chime in on what's going on this offseason, as we are all chomping at the bit for July 30 to roll around and start the 2010 season. The phone number to call is (917) 932-8401.

How to you tune into our show? It's simpler than a zone blocking scheme:

1) In order to listen to our show live, you need to register an account and log in with BlogTalkRadio. Make it easy on yourself, and head over to BlogTalkRadio's register page and create an account ahead of time.

2) At 7:59 PM CST on July 15, go to the Cheesehead Radio BTR page, log in, and listen in to our live episode.

Join us as we start the countdown to the new season on Cheesehead Radio!

Season Tickets Turnover Picks Up Pace

noreply@blogger.com (C.D. Angeli) — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:16:00 +0000

In an article today in the Green Bay Press-Gazette, hidden in the middle of a nice homespun story is some of the bleak facts for folks buried on the Packer Season Ticket Waiting List.

In all, 126 names fell off the list this year, which is now reaching epic proportions at 88,831. The protagonist of the article, Tina Dollar-Hibbard, was placed on the list back in 1970...when she was five years old.

Thanks to stadium expansion in 2003, the wait for Dollar-Hibbard and many others was accelerated, but for those of us who didn't get on the list as infants, the wait still appears to be so long that we hope for tickets for our grandchildren instead of ourselves.

99.6 percent of all the season ticket holders renewed this past year, compared to 99.4 percent in 2009. Last year, 192 names came off the list. Before that, the average number of new season tickets since 2003 averaged between 50 and 60.

Certainly, the economy has to have many season ticket holders making some tough choices, and this year's somewhat startling ticket price increase didn't help. Granted, many of these tickets may also be from fans who own 8-12 tickets, and may just be paring down their number of seats. But for those folks who are giving up a family heirloom, it's got to be a tough decision, because they aren't going to get those seats back anytime soon.

Now, that backlog of waiters on the season ticket list give Mark Murphy and the Packers a lot of flexibility to take some risks. After all, it's not like Murphy has to worry about empty stadiums in his lifetime, much less over the next couple of hundred years. At about #31,000 on the season ticket waiting list, I was looking at well over 500 years before my name came off, at the rate before the recession. I can now project that, if we continue to lose a hundred-plus names off the list each year, I can now look forward to getting my tickets in only 291 years.

In other words, Murphy can gently push the prices of the tickets up over the next couple of years, gradually pricing some people out of the stadium, only to be replaced with an endless list of folks willing to take their place. And, as we know, the Packers still rank less than the middle of the league in ticket prices, so Murphy has little to stop him.

This seems like as good of a time as any to reiterate my plan for the potential 8,000 seats the Packers are considering for the South End Zone expansion. I do agree with Brian Carriveau that the Packers are unlikely to simply add more seating, but will start creating some year-round attractions such as a beer garden or other fan-friendly fare.

But, in conjunction with the inevitable 18-game regular season that Murphy is pushing, here's how I propose to clear the list:

* The Green Package season ticket owners will keep their six home regular season games.
* The Gold Package season ticket owners will keep their two home regular season games.
* The Green and Gold Package season ticket owners will no longer have a preseason game, as the preseason would likely be shortened to two games, with only one home preseason game.
* A new package (called the Gridiron Package) will be introduced, in which they would get the one preseason game and the one extra home game offered by an 18-game regular season.

Now, people on the list can choose to bypass an offer of the Gridiron package and wait for a Green or Gold package to become available, but for many fans sitting in the tens-of-thousands, a Gridiron package will be better than nothing in their lifetime.

This would create 8,000 new Green package tickets (in the South End Zone), 8,000 new Gold Package tickets, and about 80,000 new Gridiron Packages....thus clearing much of the list and getting more fans into the game. Certainly, many fans with a Gridiron package would resubmit their names to the list in hopes of getting a Green or Gold Package in addition, so the list itself wouldn't shrink by too much, leaving Murphy will still much of a cushion to work with.

Now, this makes complete sense to me, a fan, but probably very little sense to the Packers, who would not be too enthusiastic about completely clearing the waiting list. It probably wouldn't be very popular among present season ticket holders, who would not have access to the additional game (and lose a preseason game in the process). But, when you read stories about people who are waiting 40 years for their tickets today, realizing the list is far longer now, it's a potential way to make a lot of people happy.

Packers Rebuilding? Not As Crazy As It Sounds...

noreply@blogger.com (C.D. Angeli) — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 14:39:00 +0000

In the release of the Football Outsiders Almanac 2010 earlier this week, there are some folks in the Packer Blogosphere who, despite the positive outlook for the Packers this season, take umbridge at Bill Barnwell's hypothesis that the Packers are in a rebuilding mode.

Aaron over at CHTV breaks the news to Packer fans, and naturally, the reaction is rather indignant from most of the Packer fans in the commentary.

…the Packers are hoping that something good —winning — will be able to mask the ugly task they are in the middle of: rebuilding.

It does seem a bit odd to converge predictions of a division championship along with an prognosis of rebuilding....especially when Ted Thompson was so vigorous in denying the term "rebuilding" back in 2005 when we were starting Taco Wallace and Samkon Gado. Certainly, if that was a "reload", as was the common term used in that horrible 4-12 season, today's playoff team can't be considered anywhere near the days of Wil Whittaker and Adrian Klemm. Right?

I certainly don't think so, but I think if you approach it from the correct perspective, it isn't too hard to see that the Packers are in a sort of rebuilding mode. It's perpetual rebuilding, Ted Thompson style.

You see, when Thompson came in, he didn't completely clean house, a la Ron Wolf. Wolf tabbed Sterling Sharpe and LeRoy Butler to hang around, and essentially declared every other player a liability and set out to replace them. Wolf was a GM in a different era, however, and he made full use of every avenue he could to rebuild that sorry Packer team...trading, free agency, and the draft. In those days, the repercussions of using free agency was something that you wouldn't have to deal with for a long, long time.

Thompson, on the other hand, came in with a different approach. Oh, you can't deny that he definitely came in and cleaned house of the underachieving, the overpaid, and the about-to-be-overpaid (Sharper, Longwell, Rivera, Wahle), but he kept a core of Sherman holdovers to build the team around (Favre, Driver, Clifton, Tauscher, Barnett, Kampman, Harris).

However, since that time, he has only invested in a couple of major free agency moves, bringing in Ryan Pickett and Charles Woodson back in 2006, and relying mostly on the draft and developing and re-signing from within. Oh sure, he traded for Ryan Grant and picked up Brandon Chillar, but the team that Ted Thompson is going to live or die by is going to be the one he's created through the draft.

When you eschew free agency as Thompson has done, you're hoping to hit well enough in the draft to keep your team fully stocked. Now, if you subscribe to my 33-33-33 theory, the stats will tend to shake out that only a third of your draft will live up to their billing each year. At that rate, with seven draft picks per year, you're essentially hoping for five quality starters (or better) every two years.

This means that you would be able to completely turn over your 22 starters every nine years. And, as we know, that would be impossible, given the ability for solid players to move on in free agency and the average career lifespan of an NFL football player.

And, to Thompson's credit, he hasn't relied completely on the draft to fill the holes. Atari Bigby was an undrafted free agent. Ryan Grant cost him a sixth rounder in trade. Brandon Chillar was a middle-tier free agent. But, regardless, every season the Packer have continued to have holes.

A few years ago, we bemoaned our running back situation, as well as our interior offensive line. Since then, the concern has switched out our outside linebackers, our exterior offensive linemen, and our secondary. You can bet that two years from now, we will find "holes" in other positions.

So, Ted's eschewing of free agency places the Packers in a perpetual rebuilding mode, constantly plugging holes with draft picks and other street free agents, trying to develop talent from within.

Now, not much has changed in my impression of how Thompson manages this team over the last six years, though I'm sure I placed it in a far more negative light on it in 2005 and 2006. In those days, I was far from a Thompson fan, and insisted that his "building through the draft" methodology would create a team that would always be a little better than good....never too bad, but also never quite good enough to get over the hump and into a Super Bowl. Quite frankly, I decried Thompson's conservative approach as being a curse of indefinite mediocrity.

Now, has Thompson changed, or have I? My honest guess is that I have changed, since I really don't see a dramatic difference in his approach, his massive trade-up for Clay Matthews in the draft notwithstanding. Have I softened towards Thompson's conservative approach, or have I simply accepted it as a reality that I cannot change? The answer is probably a little of both, understanding the positives that come with avoiding the high-risk moves, while also realizing that Thompson isn't going anywhere any time soon.

I have respect for Thompson sticking to his guns, staying true to his philosophy even when he comes under fire. It doesn't mean I always agree with it, or that I am content seeing holes remain on our roster (knowing there are UFAs out there that could fill them), but I do like the fact that TT doesn't make moves to appease the masses. If he is going to the top of the mountain or over the cliff, it will be on the basis of his consistent approach to building a team.

So, when Barnwell insists that the Packers are in rebuilding mode, the natural reaction from the Packer masses is one of indignation. I don't know if he is looking at the team in the same way that I am, but I do think there's some truth to what he says: Thompson is not rushing out to plug holes at cornerback and outside linebacker with free agency. So, there are holes, and Thompson is continually rebuilding through the draft and trying to develop the Brad Joneses and Pat Lees to fill those spots.

And, the day you stop rebuilding, is the day that you start standing still.

Rodgers Passes The 26-27-whatever Test

noreply@blogger.com (C.D. Angeli) — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 23:25:00 +0000

John P Lopez over at SI.com delves into a statistical wonderland, in which he believes that he has found a magical combination that predicts the success of college quarterbacks in the NFL.

It's an interesting concept, and I encourage you to check it out. He presents the theory that if a college quarterback meets three statistical categories coming out of college, it translates to a good career. Those that miss on at least one of them will struggle.

The milestones are:

A minimum score of 26 on the Wonderlic
A minimum of 27 college career starts
A minimum of 60% college career passing completion percentage

He presents a list of successful quarterbacks that meet the criteria (Manning, Romo, Brees, Rivers) and a list of ones that failed at least one of the three milestones (Culpepper, Leaf, Couch, Vick). It's a nice snapshot, though I sure would like to see a more complete list instead of a cherry-picked one.

What makes me say that is Packer quarterback Aaron Rodgers wasn't mentioned at all in his article, which I found not only annoying, but curious...why would he be left off, since he certainly has to be considered a top-10 quarterback in the league.

So, I set out to research Rodgers stats, and see how he did.

1) He scored a 35 on the Wonderlic. Check

2) He completed 63.8 of his passes at Cal. Check.

Which brings us to his college starts. According to the Packers website, Rodgers started 22 games for Cal, which is about five short of the 27 needed for Lopez's formula. However, if you include the eleven games he started for Butte Junior College as a freshman, he would be up to 33. Do those count in Lopez's formula?

My guess is, looking at Rodgers' success, they sure do. Incidentally, the incumbent starter at quarterback for the Vikings failed the formula, scoring only a 22 on his Wonderlic. Might explain all those playoff interceptions.

Woodson Might Be Right on the Lions

noreply@blogger.com (C.D. Angeli) — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:56:00 +0000

Charles Woodson discussed the NFC North on an interview with 106.7 The Fan in Washington, DC, and while most are focusing on his claim that Aaron Rodgers is the best quarterback in the NFL, he also made a strong statement regarding the perpetual doormat of the division:

“There’s so many. I look at one team in our own division that I think is going to surprise a lot of people this year and that’s the Detroit Lions. I think they had a great offseason and the coach they got in there is bringing in a new mentality and they’re building. Minnesota, they’ll be strong again of course. Just our division alone is going to be a dogfight.”

Now, I've had this same inkling of a feeling that Detroit may finally have shaken the Millen Curse they suffered under for so long. The Lions have never actually been a powerhouse (no Super Bowl trophies in that cabinet, either), but there was a time that you didn't go into those games assuming it was a win. For a long time, the Vikings, Bears, and Packers were essentially spotted two games at the beginning of the season, which has the tendency to inflate your record a bit. Not that the Packers weren't the superior team in all of those games, but the Lions were pretty good at beating themselves along the way.

Now, the drafting of Ndamukong Suh this offseason perked up a lot of ears in the NFC North. It's not often that a rookie defensive lineman helps bring some instant legitimacy to a team, but Suh's potential is considerable. Jahvid Best is also raising the hopes that go along with an offense that features some top draft picks in Calvin Johnson and Matthew Stafford.

Now, any team that still has Marquand Manuel on its roster is going to be far from a Super Bowl threat, but it's interesting to see Woodson mention the Lions by name, after Rodgers gave them a diss in his famous interview with ESPN last month that riled the local media:

Rodgers was talking about his interesting (crazy?) suggestion that NBA free agent LeBron James should sign with the Los Angeles Clippers. Yes, the Clippers. Rodgers’ rationale was that a few changes could bolster the franchise.

“New uniforms, new logo,” Rodgers said Monday. “Worked for the Lions, right?”

There you go, Leos. Circle the date: Oct. 3 at Lambeau.

Now, I see the funny part of all this: the Lions are probably happy to get any attention from anywhere to stroke their competitive juices, as most of the NFL has forgotten they even exist. But, the time may have come where the Lions are not just thrown on that pile of automatic wins anymore. If the line doesn't do a better job protecting Rodgers (and Rodgers doesn't learn to get rid of the ball a little quicker), he may be getting an up and close introduction to a Boy Named Suh.

World Cup Lessons: Be Thankful for NFL Officiating

noreply@blogger.com (C.D. Angeli) — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 03:43:00 +0000

Like many American football fans, I have taken to watching the Yanks in the World Cup over the past week. And, I am happy to share with you the reason why Americans have had such a difficult time acclimating to the most popular sport everywhere else in the world. Many point to the low scoring affairs, or even how games end in ties without the possibility of extra innings. Other decry the commercial-free boredom of over-strategic bouncing of the ball back and forth for an attempt on goal every five minutes or so.

I've been able to work past those issues. So why is it that Americans can't affinate with a sports that drives a near-global insanity?

That's it. Because the sport itself is insane.

Americans have a charged relationship with its sports officials. We ride the refs in basketball games, we scream for yellow flags to be thrown in football, and we question every called third strike. But, in the end, those officials have a responsibility to the integrity of the sports they are presiding over, and in the end, while we don't agree with the calls, we respect them.

Oh, sure, we know to expect anything when Jeff Tripllette is the referee, and we know Ed Hochuli will inundate us with over-explanations for his calls. But, no matter what, the officials are responsible for making calls public to the teams and the fans.

But on Friday, we saw the American team mount a near-historic comeback after falling behind at halftime to Slovenia 2-nil (for those of you not familiar with soccer, this is like falling behind 28-0 at halftime of an NFL football game). However, with only five minutes to play in regulation, a go-ahead goal by Team USA was called off by the official, Koman Coulibaly.

The television screen showed an "offsides penalty" (for those of you not familiar with soccer, this is like cherry-picking in basketball), but it was clear that the Americans were not offsides. Okay, to be honest, it wasn't clear to me, because I really don't quite understand what makes someone offsides and what doesn't, but it was really clear to the television commentators.

Several replays were shown, and all we could see were Slovenians hanging all over Americans, and Maurice Edu succeeding in striking a goal despite nearly getting his ankle cut out under him. But most of all, we saw midfielder Michael Bradley repeatedly and angrily asking Coulibaly to explain what the call was (first in English, then in French), but getting no response.

Do you get what I'm saying? The referee disallowed the goal and never gave a reason. Tweet: no goal. Can you imagine this happening in the NFL? Greg Jennings catches a go-ahead touchdown with minutes to play, but Scott Green throws a yellow flag, gives the Packers a ten yard penalty, and takes the points off the board without identifying what the foul was, or who it was on?

Insanity. Pure and simple.

Like USA coach Bob Bradley, we all expected the official to explain himself soon after the game. Nope.

We then expected a FIFA official to clarify or explain the ruling. Nope.

We hoped perhaps someone would at least admit it was a bad call and apologize, even if it still meant the game ended in a tie. Nope. Apparently, it is the insane culture of soccer that the officials have full reign on the field, and nobody steps forward to correct it, even when it is clearly and egregiously wrong.

I awaited for word from some of our international soccer fans to come to the defense of the American team, but the response was essentially a shrug of the shoulders, as if to say, "That's the way it is. Now you Yanks can go what we went through back in 19-whatever, and have twenty years to be bitter about it."

My God...everyone accepts this insanity. It's no wonder soccer fans around the world are as insane as they are, why every game seems to be life and death. Soccer teams and their fans are not in control of their own destiny...the officials are, and the justice they dispense are almost on a whim.

There's a reason why I don't watch the NBA much anymore: the game I loved (a la "Hoosiers") has been reduced too often to a game of players driving at the basket with the intention of drawing fouls. But soccer takes that to new heights, with players quite literally flopping left and right and squalling to the ref to award them penalty kicks. That's bad enough, but even in the limited World Cup action I've watched, the penalties are far from consistent.

In most of our US sports, while we may complain about refereeing, and even complain about critical calls (or non-calls) when it affects our team, there's mechanisms in place to keep the officiating on the level. Obviously, in the NFL and the NBA, there is instant replay, with football coaches able to initiate them with a toss of a yellow flag. Even more impressive is the willingness of the sports to discuss and explain critical calls after the game with the media, particularly the NFL.

Sure, the MLB still sticks with the old-time traditions of humans making the calls without recourse, but at least you know what the call is based on, whether it be whether a runner got in under the slide or not, or if the strike zone is a little higher than usual. You may disagree with it, and instant replay could prove it wrong...but at least the ump said "safe" or "out". He didn't just take a run off the board and walk away.

Think about poor Rob Green, the English goalie that muffed the American team into a draw with an inexplicable mishandling of a routine desperation kick from outside the box. In addition to being immediately benched (despite playing a flawless game otherwise), he became the laughing stock of the Old World, and even his English Premier league may be out several million pounds as a result of public opinion. You get the feeling that English fans will never let him forget this one mistake. It could quite literally affect the rest of his career, and certainly, when he is on the visiting team in Jolly Old England, the fans will remind him of it for years.

American fans are usually more forgiving. Even Aaron Rodgers' overtime fumble for a touchdown that ended the Packers' playoff run didn't reduce his value in the eyes of his coaches, teammates, and fans. In fact, were all still quite fascinated with which ESPN commentators he's either dissing or dating lately. American fans understand the game as a whole, and understand that many factors weigh in to a loss...that it doesn't come down to one play or one player.

For example, the goal that was disallowed last Friday was frustrating, but most American fans know that we should never have gotten down 2-0 to begin with, that our attacks were slow and our middle defenders were awry. While upset about the call, we know that it should never have come down to that.

But if all our sports were officiated like World Cup soccer, well, I guess we'd all be a little insane, wouldn't we?

Murphy Leads the Enhanced Season Charge

noreply@blogger.com (C.D. Angeli) — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 22:43:00 +0000

Well, we can't say that the Packers President doesn't listen to the fans.

In a release today from NFL.com, Packers chief Mark Murphy is one of the key figures in the attempt to change the NFL schedule from the 4-preseason/16-regular game season to a 2-preseason/18-regular game season. The name for this idea is the "enhanced season".

Mark Murphy, president of the Green Bay Packers and a member of the league's negotiating team, briefed some national media on the proposal after the meeting, saying that it would not be adapted until 2012 at the earliest and suggesting the NFL would consider reducing the preseason from four games to two, adjusting roster size and injured reserve rules, and adding a bye week at the start of the regular season as part of the initiative. Murphy also said the NFL is studying the concept of adding its own developmental league -- likely in the spring -- within the United States to replace the league's past efforts in Europe.

Now, this isn't a new idea for Packer fans, and particularly their season ticket holders, who are obliged to purchase preseason game tickets at the same price as regular season tickets. Season ticket holders grumble at spending $70 a seat to sit and watch the backups play against another team's backups, and still pay the same price for a cup of beer. As a non-season ticket holder, I don't think I have ever attended a preseason game, simply for the reason that I don't want to pay that much money for something that has the fan energy of a community band concert.

So, on the surface, this sounds like the perfect solution. Two preseason games (along with Family Night) and then the Packers can start playing for real. More real games, more television games, more commercials, more advertising, and more happy fans. Think of it...18 week fantasy seasons, records falling left and right with the extra two games. It makes a lot of sense, and makes sense that Murphy, who represents the league's smallest market, would be championing this change for the shareholder owners of his club.

And, expansion of major league sports seasons is pretty common. At the beginning of the 1900's, Major League Baseball had only a 140- game schedule, upped to 154 permanently in 1920, and to 162 in 1961. The NBA started with a 55-game season that has expanded to today's 82. Even the modern NFL has grown from a 12-game season to a 14-game season in 1961 to today's 16 (starting in 1978).

Naturally, something that sounds so perfect simply can't be so perfect, and already there are concerns, many of them valid. Most notably are the concerns from the NFLPA.

"...the NFLPA had "concerns" about the reliability of the data the league provided regarding the impact of an 18-game regular season and injury risks, and how the league would provide "post-career health care." And, as well, how players would be paid, with [George] Atallah suggesting there would have to be "enhanced compensation," to the players since the number of meaningful games is expanding."

The use of the term "enhanced compensation" is definitely amusing, but the concerns from the players are pretty serious. Every season, the NFL drafts and crafts players that run faster, hit harder, lift more, and work out more. While the NBA and MLB have longer seasons, the physical impact of an NFL season is evident by Week 14, much less the playoffs. It's a violent sport, which is why Tom Brady and (of all people) Ray Lewis spoke out in concern.

“I’ve taken part in several postseason runs where we have played 20 games," Brady said. "The long-term impact this game has on our bodies is well documented. Look no further than the players that came before we did. Each player today has to play three years in order to earn five years of post-career health care. Our Union has done a great job of raising the awareness on these issues and will make the right decision for us players, the game and the fans.”

Added Lewis: “I’ve been blessed to play this game for so long, but it’s time to start thinking about what legacy and impact changes like this will leave for the players of tomorrow and us after we retire. I know our fans may not like preseason games and I don’t like all of them, but swapping two preseason games for two end-of-season games -- when players already play hurt -- comes at a huge cost for the player and the team.”

The physical toil of a season is more considerable to me than the natural concerns over money--which Murphy rightfully points out will be based on the same percentages that divide the revenues now. There's no doubt that the NFL is going to have to carefully bargain with the union in order to make the enhanced season a reality.

The move would also make the NFL have the largest schedule increase over time. MLB going from 140 games to 162 games is a 16% increase. The NBA going from 55 to 82 games is a 48% increase. At 16 games, the NFL already has increased its season length by 33%, and 18 games would be a 50% increase over from 12 games. [And yes, I know I'm playing around with numbers. Just take it at face value. Hakuna Matata.]

As a Packer fan, it would be interesting to see how that extra regular season game would be awarded to season ticket holders...remember that both the Green and Gold Package ticket holders get a preseason game. If one preseason game is eliminated, which package keeps the preseason game and which one gets another regular season game? Naturally, the Milwaukee (Gold) fans will want the extra regular season game that they used to have. Would the one home preseason game then alternate years?

Personally (and I only say this as a waiting list member), I'd offer a Gridiron package and make a whole new group that would get the preseason game and the extra regular season game, allowing a large number of willing people to leave the waiting list to get two games. Those that wish to wait for Green or Gold tickets can remain on the list. This way, the Green/Gold ticket owners still get their six/two regular season games and no longer have to worry about paying for the single preseason game. A younger generation of season ticket holders get to be the preseason crowd and have their own "real" game. Since it is unlikely that everyone would leave the season ticket list for those two games, the Packers would then have a pile of tickets to use as they wish...more tickets to sell locally in contests or even just sell on their website.

And again, this would cause tremendous strife amongst the fans, just as the change will cause plenty of strife amongst the owners and players (though I have no doubt the television networks would only benefit from such a deal, which may end up being the deal-sealer. Money has a way of making things move).

But, perhaps the most interesting part of this whole situation is seeing our President, who was baptized into his job with FavreGate, becoming a vocal leader and representative of the NFL as a whole in just two short years on the job. That's a good reflection on the Packers as an organization and the respect that he is garnering already.

RFA Tendering Process a Necessary Evil

noreply@blogger.com (C.D. Angeli) — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:42:00 +0000

As we are finally reaching the end of the tendering season, I spent a little time thinking about how restrictive RFA tendering really is for many players. In particular, I think about how frustrating it is for Tramon Williams, who apparently signed his tender just before the deadline is scheduled to make $3.1M this year as a result, about six times what he made last year.

In reality, getting tendered after four years in the league has to be a bit scary for these young kids. Sure, the tender amount is usually more than what their previous salary was, but it comes with strings attached. Most of these guys are entering their fifth season, meaning they are in or approaching their mid-20's and their prime playing years. But, they've gotten past that first rookie paycheck and many of them are maturing: they've likely bought their first car(s), their first house(s), have gotten married and may even have kids on the way.

The shock of seeing that first contract run out and not being sure of what that income level is going to be next year is probably rather sobering for many of those RFA's. And, the team holds most of the cards: they control the tender level (and thus, their salary), the deadline, and the rights to the player as long as the tender is on the table. But, even more disconcerting for the player is that it is a one-year deal with no guaranteed money, and the team can choose to cut that player at any time without any penalty.

So, that brings us to Tramon. Frankly, he's been a very talented corner who, in my opinion, is as good as any other nickel back in the NFL. If you don't buy that, try this: I'd be willing to bet you that Williams would be a starter on at least half the other teams in the NFL right now. If you don't believe me, go through the depth charts of all the teams and let me know if I'm right.

And there's the rub: Williams is the heir apparent to the two Pro Bowl cornerbacks we have right now, and will likely have several starts again this season due to injury, as Harris (35) and Woodson (33) are both aging gracefully, but still aging. Harris, of course, is still a question mark as he recovers from injury.

And, simply put, the drop-off after Williams is steep. There's plenty of projects and no groomed corners ready to take over in the event of emergency. Williams, in many ways, is what Al Harris was when the Packers traded for him in 2003...a strong nickel playing behind two veteran All-Pros.

Williams is an RFA, though, and when the Packers placed a first- and third-round tender on him, they took away any chance of another team considering him. So, despite being a solid player, a key part of the defensive secondary, and the heir apparent that may be called on sooner rather than later, his choices were limited. $3.1M, take it or leave it. The Packers even threatened to lower it after the June 15 deadline to 110% of his salary last year, a little less than $600,000.

The arbitrariness of extensions has to be weighing in on his mind, too. Nick Collins, an RFA, signed his first- and third-round tender, but it was clear there was discussion about an extension before that....and he got it (3yrs, $23M, $14M in 2010). In fact, plenty of money has been thrown the way of Collins, Chad Clifton, Mark Tauscher, and Ryan Pickett this offseason...no doubt Williams has been waiting for his turn.

Instead, Williams signs the tender in lieu of the Packers' threat to fractionalize it, and now is in a position to have to prove his worth this season in order to garner that extension. One torn ACL, and extension talks are put off for another year.

So, RFA seems like an evil thing, but it is also a necessary evil. The Packers, as a team, don't have an infinite amount of money to throw at players, despite the uncapped year. And after re-signing many of the UFAs (Pickett, Tauscher, Clifton), the Packers have to be hesitant before throwing money at every RFA they have.

Thinking about that list of RFA's this year, each of them tells their own story of unreached potential or being stuck in that plane between serviceable and solid starter.

Tramon: the CB of the future, but not yet
Colledge: inconsistent starter, constantly jumping all along the line
Blackmon: injury plagued returner, trying to find his spot in the secondary
Kuhn: stalwart FB, but one of many
Jolly: rotational lineman plagued by off-the-field issues
Bigby: oft-injured defacto starter at safety
Spitz: groomed to be new center, lost job and will compete with Colledge for G spot.

Collins was a RFA, but only by a technicality that stretched his RFA status an extra year under the terms of the expiring CBA, and the Packers obviously saw that he had reached his potential. And there's the rub: that fifth year of experience let the Packers know exactly where they were standing with Collins. Remember, it was only last offseason many of us were still questioning whether he was as good as he played in 2008, especially when he was skipping OTAs. That fifth year is critical for maturity and evaluation. Remember, Javon Walker was traded at the end of his fourth season...and a good thing, too.

The point is: are any of these RFA's worth spending Pickett/Collins/Clifton money on? No, and that is what RFA is all about. It takes those players that are on the cusp and allows teams to keep them without having to invest a large amount of long-term coin, strapping them with a contract they can't jettison.

For every Williams that the setup seems unfair with, there's a Johnny Jolly that makes it necessary. Jolly has the potential to grow into a starter, a productive one at that. But, he also has the potential to crash and burn, both on and off the field. If he were an UFA right now, there's no doubt some team would be willing to throw a moderately priced contract offer at him (heck, look at what the Browns paid Corey Williams) that would force Ted Thompson to make a choice on whether he thinks he's worth the risk or not.

It's too bad that it puts so much power in the hands of the team, but the alternative would be even worse. In many ways, as these players enter their fifth season and UFA (assuming the CBA is renegotiated by then), they are put in the position to prove it or lose it...and cash in if they meet that potential, either here or with another team.

Look for a group of players who have signed their tenders to prove themselves this year. For one, I think Williams will get his reward this year, while the loser of the Spitz/Colledge battle may not.

Jolly Signs His RFA Tender; Bibgy and Williams "Holding Out"

noreply@blogger.com (C.D. Angeli) — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:44:00 +0000

So, according to Greg Bedard, Johnny Jolly signed off on his RFA tender last night. My reaction? Meh. Apparently, after a couple of seasons of boneheaded moves, common sense (or self-preservation) kicked in at the eleventh hour. After trafficking codeine, drawing key penalties by hitting other players with his helmet (and vowing to do it again), and coming dangerously close to violating the terms of his bond by appearing in a party flyer (with a Packer logo in it), he finally decided that guaranteed money is better than none.

The risk for the Packers is low, as RFA's can be cut at any time with little penalty other than signing bonuses, if any. Jolly is a decent rotational player, but as we've seen with Corey Williams, rotational players can be jettisoned and replaced with other rotational players. If Jolly thought he was going to get a long term deal with his legal issues still over his head, he was pipe dreaming.

This brings us to our last two RFA "holdouts" (they are technically not holding out since they are not under contract), Atari Bigby and Tramon Williams. Bedard tweeted earlier today that the rationale for Bigby not signing was that the difference between his tender and the 110% it could be reduced to was negligible. I'm not sure I understand his reasons, but finding out Drew Rosenhaus was his agent was no surprise. If I'm correct, wasn't he representing Javon Walker during his pouty-smurf routine?

Bigby has been the defacto starter for several seasons now, but since his strong 2007 rookie season, he's been marred by injuries. He's shown streaks of being that same physical, ball-hawking player, but last season was a wake-up call when Jarrett Bush and Matt Giordano were called into starting roles. Without Bigby (and the questionable release of Anthony Smith), the safety position was dangerously thin much of the season.

So, the Packers have taken steps to shore it up, moving Wil Blackmon from corner to safety and drafting a Collins clone in Morgan Burnett, who has been somewhat of a darling during OTA's (not that we should put much stock in that...remember Jeremy Thompson was last year's darling). However, the Packers have Nick Collins, Burnett, Blackmon, Charlie Peprah, and Derrick Martin on the depth chart without Bigby. Rosenhaus, long famed for placing the needs of his clients over his own monetary gain *cough*, is taking a gambit that the Packers regard him as highly as he does. Given that the Packers have reported sent Bigby a letter letting him know they intend to reduce his tender offer to 110% of his salary last year, it doesn't look like they have as much faith as Drew.

Finally, we have the guy with the chips on his side of the table, Tramon Williams. Tramon has been an excellent nickel back and spot starter for the past few seasons. Has he been spectacular? No. Has he been consistent? No. The difference lies, however, in that the depth chart at cornerback is dangerously thin. With Blackmon moving back to safety, the starters are Charles Woodson, the AP Defensive Player of the Year, and Al Harris. However, Woodson is 33 and Harris is 35, and there is much concern about Harris's progress recovering from injury last season, leaving the spot opposite Woodson in some doubt.

After those two, the drop-off after Williams is steep: Brandon Underwood, who is embroiled in legal issues; Pat Lee, the oft-injured former second rounder; and Josh Bell, the talented kid who gave up the winning touchdown to the Steelers last year. The Packers like to send the message that they are confident about Lee, but I'm guessing like most of us on the outside, we'd like some proof before we rubber-stamp playing hardball with Tramon.

It is not out of the realms of possibility to say the Packers could be entering September with Harris on the PUP list, Underwood on the suspension list, Lee injured again, and praying Woodson doesn't start showing his age.

Williams has the better hand, and in an uncapped year knows the Packers can't use the excuse of not having the space to give him a decent deal (especially after the one given to Chad Clifton). The Packers are wise to wait with Williams, and not give him that deal until Bigby and Jolly have both signed...no point in starting a feeding frenzy.

My last point is that it is intriguing that the Packers had this vaunted defense all of last year, ranked #1 overall for quite some time...until we met playoff caliber teams like the Steelers and the Cardinals, who made our defense look like the #32-ranked squad. All three of our remaining RFA's were from that defense, and it is no wonder that Dom and Mike are scrutinizing that squad very, very carefully.

The only other team that had more RFA's as of yesterday were the Saints, not unusual for a Super Bowl champion team, when many players look to cash in (or hold out). Is the Packer defense on that level, that players were holding out to the last minute and beyond?

Apologies? Good. The Need to Apologize A Lot? Not So Good.

noreply@blogger.com (C.D. Angeli) — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 22:05:00 +0000

It's been a couple days of apologies from Packer players lately, insuring that our hopes for an eventful offseason come true (though perhaps not in the way the we would have wanted). Personally, I was hoping for a free agent signing or something.

Let's do the roundtable of apologies (and non-apology) and my two cents on each.

Brandon Underwood: Underwood apologized to his teammates Wednesday for the mess he found himself in after Clay Matthews' golf outing in Lake Delton. Underwood looks to be potentially facing a charge of intention of solicitation of prostitution, but it also looks as if he was the target of a robbery-gone-awry from a pair of ladies who turned it into a poorly-structured claim of sexual assault.

When the news broke, I cautioned folks to hold off on judgment. Having lived through the 1985 dual-sexual assault cases of James Lofton and Mossy Cade, both players fought a PR battle as well as their own legal battles. What always baffled me is how the Packers ended up cutting Lofton, an iconic player who ended up being acquitted of his charges, while they hung on to Cade, a little-known cornerback who served a year of jail time.

In short, the two women appear to have targeted Underwood, money did exchange hands (according to the police reports), and then they couldn't quite get their story straight as to who assaulted them when they were caught trying to rob Underwood. The police have turned the case over to the District Attorney without a recommendation of charges against Underwood.

My guess is that no charges will come against Underwood, as it seems clear he was likely a target of a crime. More importantly, though, is the judgment that will be coming from two other sources: Roger Goodell, who has taken a firm stance on players placing themselves in questionable circumstances; and Underwood's wife, Brandie.

My unsolicited two bits: Brandon, the time has come to grow up. I know there are many guys on the Packers and other teams that screw around, but you've been called out in a very public way. Adding to the fact that your position coach called you "immature" last year and a teammate said you've been "a problem" for a while tells me that this incident may not be as isolated as you'd like it to be. Dan Artkush seems to think that your position is pretty safe, but I think the time has come to apply yourself professionally (and personally), because I'm not as sure. Ted Thompson is the guy who coined the phrase "Packer People", and there are going to be people watching him quite closely to see if that was just words or a real philosophy.

Aaron Rodgers: A-Rodge backed off his somewhat-controversial smack-down of ESPN reporters Tony Kornheiser and Ron Jaworski with an apology...not for the comments themselves, but for how they were delivered.

"Unfortunately the message of really in jest talking about that, it was probably inappropriate for that setting and I didn't mean to offend anybody personally," Rodgers said today. "I have a lot of respect for those guys and what they do. It's something that I know is more difficult than it looks at times and I meant no personal disrespect to anybody and I apologize if any of them took offense to what I said. Unfortunately the translation is often lost when it's on radio, not on TV."

When asked if he regretted any of his statements, Rodgers said, "I regret that it was an inappropriate setting, I think, for those comments."

Now, Rodgers' initial comments garnered a wide range of responses from Packer fans, ranging from concern to outright glee. There was certainly no one coming to the aid of Kornheiser, and even he himself seemed to agree with Rodgers' assessment of him.

That stated, there are a large percentage of fans who are "stoked" by Rodgers' "fiestiness" and willingness to "say it like it is". And, I myself have no problem with having a quarterback who is able to rise to his own defense. However, Rodgers has endeared himself to many Packer fans by being the ultimate strong, silent leading man. He could have teed off about his draft-day fall back in 2005, but he didn't. He could have whined from the bench in 2006 about how he should be starting ahead of Brett Favre, but he didn't. He certainly could have spoken his mind during FavreGate in 2008, insisting he was the better man for the job and what a diva Favre was, but he didn't. And he's had every opportunity to tell everyone he told them so since then, but he hasn't. All he's done is bide his time, work hard in practice, and let his play do the talking for him. And there isn't a Favre Lover out there who can criticize how he's handled himself.

Don Banks' story over at SI.com talks about a Rodgers that has chosen to be vocal behind the scenes, as he reveals it was Rodgers who spearheaded the "Come To Jesus" team meeting after the Tampa Bay debacle that changed the fortunes of an entire season.

"It was the first time in my five years here that we had a players-only meeting that was actually productive,'' Rodgers told me. "It was all about conflict. It was guys getting on the linemen about blocking, linemen getting on the receivers about catching the ball, guys getting on me about getting the ball out of my hands quicker. Everything just got out on the table. It was all out there, and the great thing was we were able to talk through our issues and move forward. And from that day on, I felt a different air of confidence about our team. We believed in each other and it was a different group of guys, a different team after that.''

This is the Aaron Rodgers we look to as an icon, a team leader, and a hero. My question is, if you want to add fiesty, tell-it-like-it-is cocky quarterback to the description, why would you choose to start with a tool like Kornheiser?

My unsolicited two bits: Aaron, you've kept a stiff upper lip and hid your feelings about how things went down for a long time, and like it or not, we respect you for it. You've not given your detractors any extra ammunition and slowly silenced them with your play. As a former Favre Acolyte, I wear my red #12 jersey with pride because of how you have handled yourself as much as your play.

So, that stated, if you really want to get this off your chest, don't waste time with the media. Launch a smirky, tongue-in-cheek salvo at the guy who has been the center of many of your struggles: Favre. Ask him why he's not coming back this year. Mention some of his diva behaviors in the locker room and wonder aloud how Jared Allen likes tiptoeing around him when he's in a bad mood. Mention you're going to ask Mike to play safety at the end of the Vikings game so you can have one of his interceptions.

Heck, if you're going to stir up the pot, this is the way to guarantee that not only will all of Packer Nation be behind you, but so will most of the national audience (and media). Favre will have no choice but to return to defend his honor, and this time, it will be the final showdown.

Don't waste time with the media hacks. You won't win in the end. If you want to cleanse yourself of what ails you, take it to the source. And we'll all be behind you 100%.

Johnny Jolly: No, there isn't an apology forthcoming from the Jolly camp, but there should be. This week's news featured a two-time felon being called as star witness against Jolly, followed by yet another delay of the trial that will now fall on the first day of training camp. All this over 200 mg of codeine. In 2008. The swift wheels of justice don't roll that way when the defendant is apparently Jolly or the Williamses in Minnesota.

But Jolly didn't clean up his act, getting in trouble last month for fliers sponsoring a party at a Houston nightclub, which got him back in hot water with the judge, as he is prohibited from using alcohol or drugs as terms of his bond. It probably didn't help matters much when the flier featured a picture of Jolly with a backwards baseball cap next to a picture of him with his Packer helmet on.

Add to it all that he still has not signed his restricted free agent tender, and you have what amounts to an ongoing headache for the Packers. The doubts are creeping in again...is this "Packer People"? Nicholas Kashion over at the Bleacher Report says that the Packers would be foolish to sever ties with Jolly, citing a long list of statistics that prove he is far too valuable to cut over a small issue as being accused of a crime.

If the prosecution had enough evidence to convict him they would have gone to trial by now. Their constant posturing in the media shows just how weak their circumstantial case against Jolly is. They are now resorting to getting multiple felons to attempt to tarnish Jolly's image by leaking stories of alleged past misdeeds on the part of Jolly.

True? Perhaps, but the point still stands that if there are more alleged misdeeds, they are likely to come to light, and Roger Goodell will put his stamp on Jolly at the conclusion of the trial (estimated to be January 2023), regardless of the outcome. And as for his production, Greg Bedard tweeted an interesting statistical analysis that suggests Jolly hasn't been as rock-solid as many of us presume, ranking just behind Jarrett Bush in defensive ratings. I don't put a ton of stock in over-conglomerized statistical amalgomations, and this one seems a little slanted against defensive linemen.

My unsolicited two bits: Johnny, you haven't offered an apology for this ongoing saga, and even Brandon Underwood apologized to the team for dragging them into the public eye with his questionable decision-making. 'Tis the season for apologies, so it might be a good time to give both your teammates, your coaches, and your fans a chance to see the Jolly that we want to see on the team...a little repentance, even just for the distraction this is causing, would be nice. It's a 3-4 defense and the Packers have already added Mike Neal in the draft, and he sure comes off to me as Packer People.

Mike McCarthy spoke out Thursday in reference to Underwood's situation that the Packers are making the papers too many times for the wrong reasons.

"I’ll just address the activity this past week that we have had as a football team. We talked about it this morning in the team meeting. We discussed the fact that we are in an offseason program and we’re in the paper way too much with things other than football. We all have a responsibility and an obligation to represent the Green Bay Packers properly. Every decision we make, both on and off the field, has consequences, and poor judgment was made. With that, the circumstances are what they are. We have dealt with it as a football team and frankly we have moved on."

Certainly, the Jolly situation has to fall in this same category; and while Rodgers' statements and subsequent apology were far less serious, after suffering through FavreGate, McCarthy is acutely aware of how bad press can affect your team.

The 2010 version of the Green Bay Packers has a lot of optimism and hopes for a team on the rise and able to contend deep into the playoffs. Let's hope that the Packers stop needing to apologize and keep the focus on the field, where it belongs...for all of us.

Kornheiser v. Rodgers, Round One

noreply@blogger.com (C.D. Angeli) — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 18:41:00 +0000

In an entertaining and surprisingly frank interview with Homer on ESPNRadio in Milwaukee, Aaron Rodgers offered some pretty scathing criticism of ESPN journalist and ex-MNF color commentator Tony Kornheiser. Apparently, Kornheiser was not only intolerable in front of the camera, but also behind the scenes.

"You know who was better than Tony Kornheiser? Dennis Miller was ten times better. Dennis Miller was a great comedian, but one of the worst Monday Night Football guys ever. And he was ten times better than Tony Kornheiser. His stuff was actually funny. Tony wasn't funny at all. He did absolutely no research. We'd sit in those production meetings and he would add absolutely nothing to the conversation. I'd be like, 'What are we doing here? This is stupid.'

"You get in there with Tony and he's asking you all these dumb questions that have no application to the game you are playing or anything you are doing....He's terrible. . . . I don't think he's funny. I don't think he's insightful. I don't think knows, really, anything about sports."

Now, Rodgers isn't saying anything about Kornheiser that most of us haven't already said about him. What is unusual is the candor that an NFL starting quarterback takes in a public tar-and-feathering of a name journalist. Rodgers went on to offer an integrity-wash of more-respected ESPN personality Ron Jaworski.

"I like him, but, when I was coming out, he did the worst segment in the history of TV about me talking about my fundamentals. It was not even close to anywhere near my fundamentals. The first time I met him, someone introduced me to him and I said, 'Yeah I know him. He's the guy who ripped me before the draft.' The rest of the night he told me how great I was. I was like, 'I know your song and dance.' And now he loves me."

I don't recall the segment that Jaworski had done, but it seems like ARodge is holding a bit of a grudge over the draft-day coverage that most of us know is useless a day after the draft, anyway. I'm going to offer a little bit of criticism for Rodgers, and as usual, I will take a beating for it. People forget that I am an Aaron Rodgers fan, but praise and criticism come when you earn it, and I think he's earned a little bit of criticism here.

First of all, Kornheiser. Kornheiser is the epitome of the angry sportswriter sitting at his desk trying to make a name for himself. He is at his "best" (if you can all it that) when he is arguing and being belligerent, either in print or on the screen, thus why he was tabbed by ESPN to do a show like PTI. He tries to make it tolerable by being self-depreciating, as if ripping on himself makes it okay to rip on others, too.

But excelling at getting into fights and raising your voice doesn't translate to mainstream sports journalism, and as we found, certainly doesn't translate to facilitating the showcase football game of the week in front of a national audience. He not only simply enjoyed hearing himself talk for the sake of talking, he often tried to get into vocal competitions with Jaworksi as if he were on PTI...which is a total turnoff for football purists who just want to watch the game and get insight from the commentators.

Kornheiser is the middle-aged uncle that every family has that comes to every reunion or family function, has a couple of drinks, and starts pushing buttons until someone responds to him. Maybe its politics. Maybe its how this cousin is treating her sister. But, you can tell he's in his element when someone tries to challenge him, as a sneer comes across his face waiting for the next counterpoint he can shoot down. Loudly.

Last year, I wrote an article on how the ESPN-ization of sports journalism was changing the landscape of how we watch sports. There were a couple of folks who missed the point, as I am completely aware that some journalists have been crooked and slanted since the days of the Black Sox. But what ESPN and their imitators have done is try to make the journalists into "personalities" as large as the sports they cover, injecting themselves into the sports stories themselves, instead of covering or commenting on them. ESPN took Self-Depreciating Cranky Guy and made a show around him, and then tried to cross-market him to a larger audience on the biggest stage.

So, yes...Kornheiser is a tool. A one-trick pony that is best suited for PTI and print journalism. And Rodgers' comments were probably right on the mark. That stated, my father always said something when I was debating challenging the status quo in my profession: "You could be right. Dead right." In other words, I could be right in what I say or in why challenge my bosses, but in the end, I could suffer for it because of how or when I choose to do it.

This is not to say that the media are the "bosses" of athletes, but they do have control over what is said about you and how the public perceives you. Kornheiser is the type of guy to hold a grudge, and ESPN has already established itself as the All Things Favre Network. No doubt that they may circle the wagons around Kornheiser, or at least, sit back and allow him to tee off on Rodgers any chance he gets.

That's the funny thing: many media guys can dish it out, but can't take it. I don't worry a bit about Rodgers deflecting criticism. He's been Mr. Teflon, and deserves a medal for smoothly and classily handling every shot he's taken following FavreGate. Giving credit to Jeff Blumb, his GM, his coach, and his fellow players for circling the wagons around him, Rodgers has proven to be worth all their efforts and has paid off big time.

But the interview had the air of a man who has found comfort in his status. Yes, it was entertaining, and yes, Rodgers is an engaging guy who speaks his mind. But I don't think you'd hear him shooting down ESPN journalists a couple of years ago. He is definitely more comfortable with his position and we're starting to see a guy willing to let the words flow for an eager interviewer.

Favre developed this trait to severe and profound proportions by the end of his tenure with the Packers, but he always maintained a good working relationship with the press. Wisely so, because when he began making some idiotic decisions and statements, he always had several journalists in his corner. The Sal Palantonios and Mike Florios were few and far between in those early days of FavreGate.

You never know when something is going to happen later on...a marriage, a divorce, a solicitation of prostitution, a poorly phrased comment. A domestic incident can be downplayed by the press or completely blown up. Real journalists just present the facts, but "personalities" will inject themselves into the story, and both Jaworski and Kornheiser are just the kind of guys that fit that description.

Naturally, I get a kick out of hearing our fiesty quarterback send some criticism back at the folks who have piled in on him the past three years, and maybe the days of Aaron's stiff upper lip are gone. But, as much as I detest the "entertainment sports media", it isn't the best idea to create enemies with them. You don't know what the future may bring, and there are many Packers who once walked on water with their fans, who then found themselves fighting a public relations battle as they fought their own legal or personal issues.

Face it: Kornheiser was foolishly placed in the position he was by ESPN. Mike Sherman was foolishly placed in a dual-role position by Bob Harlan. As much as we vilify both Kornheiser and Sherman for failing in those roles, what were their superiors thinking when putting them in those roles to begin with?

And Jaworski (and Kiper, and McShay) are all going to try and evaluate 300 players, touting their strengths and weaknesses based on their play in college and at combines...which almost all of us know, usually doesn't translate perfectly to the pro game. Jaworksi was likely asked to do a spot as to why Alex Smith was ranking higher that Rodgers at the time, and that's what Jaws came up with.

Rodgers could have easily focused on the strengths of Tirico when asked, offered a smirky "no comment" when asked about Kornheiser, and simply brought up his disagreement with Jaworski's draft-day story and how it drives him today. Politically correct? Absolutely, which is what most NFL players not named Ochocinco tend to do.

As I said, I'm offering a critique of how Aaron Rodgers handled the situation, which means I am going to get deluged with "hater" comments and advice on pursuing other hobbies besides writing. I love Aaron Rodgers and think he's a natural leader and a great quarterback, and the more they lower the number of sacks he takes, the higher his ceiling gets every year.

I just don't think there's a benefit to throwing a "personality" such personal barbs. All you do is give them more attention they don't need, and more ammunition to fire at you later.

Ron Wolf's Top Ten Moves

noreply@blogger.com (C.D. Angeli) — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 21:38:00 +0000

Where were you eighteen years ago today? If you are a Packer fan, you were probably checking the newspaper each day to find out what crazy moves new general manager Ron Wolf was making after being handed the keys to the organization. Today, we regard him in high regard, as a man who rescued a storied franchise from the Lean Years, but in those days, let's be honest: there were some doubts about his big-time moves.

After all, who was Ron Wolf? As far as we knew, he was the guy who helped lead the Tampa Bay Buccaneers to an 0-28 expansion franchise start, and took the fall for it back in 1978. He was a VP who got caught between two "good old boys" in owner Hugh Culverhouse and coach Jim McKay, and when it was time for heads to roll, Wolf was the odd man out. While he went on to establish himself in front-office and scouting positions with the Raiders and Jets since then, there were more than a couple of rumblings if this guy making wholesale changes with the Packers was playing with a full deck.

At that point, however, Packer fans were ready for change. After years of seeing a .500 season as overachieving, the Packers seemed on the cusp of something special under Lindy Infante in 1989, narrowly missing the playoffs.* However, that was the zenith, and the Packers quickly took giant steps backwards before finishing in an all-too-familiar 4-12 season in 1991. Packer fans had suffered through years of uninspired play, and that 1989 season gave them a taste in their mouth for more than what Starr, Gregg, and now Infante was giving them.

For years, Packer fans had cried for "the coffers to be opened" and to see the Packers go out and spend the money that other franchises were willing to cough up for good players. With the advent of free agency and the salary cap, Wolf found himself in the perfect storm, as far as GMs go. He had a green light to spend some money, additional revenue brought it due to the sharing rules, and availability of veteran players never before seen in the NFL. So, what did he do? Sent a second-round pick to the 49ers for a head coach--a guy who had never been a head coach at any level. Then, he sent a first-round pick to the Falcons for a third-string quarterback that looked to be a bronco in dire need of being broke.

June of 1992 was a season of anticipation: was this team going to implode under an inexperienced coach, a bomb of a quarterback, and the loss of our draft picks? Even then, you couldn't say that Wolf wasn't a guy who was afraid to take risks. In the end, this is what made him such a commendable general manager: he took tremendous risks that ended up paying off in the long run, no matter how questioned they were at the time.

For me, a "risk" is defined as a move that goes beyond the daily humdrum of managing the roster of a team. Simply making a draft pick, even if it successful, isn't a risk. Even if you pick a future Hall of Famer in the fourth round, it is still more of a reflection of your scouting (and a little bit of luck) as opposed to making some sort of calculated risk.

Risks can, however, be a trade-up in a draft (or even a trade-back), changing your fortunes and the value system that the draft allots for each team. A trade-up sacrifices quantity for quality, while a trade-back does the opposite (at least in theory).

Otherwise, risks are moves that are out of the ordinary: trades, free-agent signings, and the like. And Ron Wolf made a slough of such moves on the way to making his five-year plan a reality, culminating with two consecutive Super Bowl appearances and one Lombardi Trophy.

In honor of those days when you couldn't wait to get the paper to find out what was happening next in a quickly-evolving regime change, here is my list of Top Ten Moves Made By Ron Wolf.

10) The firing of Lindy Infante. Normally, I wouldn't count such a firing as any sort of risky move. In fact, it is usually customary for a newly-hired general manager to bring in his own coach, so there really was no surprise that the well-liked Infante was let go. But, it wasn't just the firing of Infante, it was the immediate message sent to the rest of the team and the fans that things were going to be different.

On the day Infante was fired, Wolf went in to the locker room to address the team, and by his own recollection, Wolf said he didn't make a whole lot of friends that day. But, the country-club atmosphere that had been prevalent under Infante had stalled the development of the team, and Wolf let it be known...in no uncertain terms...that every player was here only as long as it took Wolf to find someone to replace him.

While usually guarded, his candor sometimes got the best of him when speaking with the media, and what he said surprised many fans. Wolf announced that offseason that, after examining the roster, he didn't see any players on the roster that fit his plans, and that he didn't expect many of them to be around within a year or two. This hit many fans (and players) sharply: despite their 4-12 finish, there were still some popular players on the team: Don Majkowski, Chuck Cecil, Jackie Harris, Mark Murphy, and Vince Workman were all fan favorites that would soon find their days numbered.

And in the end, Wolf was true to his word. It is one thing to make threats, and another to follow through on them. After Sterling Sharpe's career-ending injury in 1994, less than a handful of players who graced Infante's roster in 1991 remained on the 1995 team: Butler, Jacke, Jurkovic, and Ruettgers.

9. Bag o' Donuts via Plan B. James Campen had been one of those popular Packers under Lindy Infante, but injuries had been a problem since coming to the Packers in 1989. Enter Frank Winters, a journeyman center who came to the Packers the same way Campen had, by way of long-gone Plan B free agency. Winters immediately connected another new recruit in 1992: quarterback Brett Favre, and became close friends and roommates on the road.

When Campen succumbed to injury in 1993, it was Winters who stepped in to start at center during Week 4. Winters' held onto the starting spot for eight seasons following, but his first season might have been the most important one. 1993 was Brett Favre's crossroads season, with 24 interceptions and a stubborn penchant for risk-taking that nearly had him benched for Mark Brunell. Having his best friend taking over under center certainly had to help Favre's confidence as that season of growth went on. It certainly didn't hurt that Winters was renowned for his hustle and his workmanlike approach to the game, something that tempered Favre's easy, lighter approach.

My favorite memory of Bag o' Donuts was that dreaded game against the Vikings in 1995, when both Favre and Ty Detmer left the game with injuries, and TJ Rubely was left to come into the game to hang on to a lead against the Vikings. As Rubely foolishly audibled out of a quarterback sneak into a passing play, it was Winters who was screaming, "No! Don't do it!!" In the end, Rubely threw an interception, the Vikings won, and Winters was left glaring at Rubely (who found a pink slip in his locker the next day). I have little doubt that when Favre needed to be grounded, Winters was the man on the field to do it.

Jersey-born Winters was a popular player who felt a duty to play his hardest for his teammates, and whose toughness and effort never stopped until the whistle blew (and several times, afterwards). Winters was the epitome of the kind of player Wolf wanted to fill his roster and change the paradigm of the team.

8. Bad Moon Rison. The Packers were 6-1 and had their tickets already punched for an appearance in the 1996 playoffs. Every piece that Ron Wolf had put together was in place for this season, and the preseason favorites were playing every bit the part...that is, until #1 wide receiver Robert Brooks tore his right knee into two or three pieces and went on the IR list. Like any GM after the trade deadline, Wolf gave Mike Holmgren time to see if the team could compensate for the loss.

But a 2-2 record dropped the team to 8-3 and doubts were beginning to creep in. Don Beebe, so instrumental on special teams and as a #3 receiver, was unable to play at the level of a starter, and the Packers' offense began to sputter. With the trade deadline past, Wolf found any options to upgrade the position very limited: most players available off the street weren't going to outplay Beebe, and that wasn't going to be good enough.

Except for the troubled Andre Rison, he of the infamous burning house by his ex-girlfriend only a few years prior. Off-the-field issues haunted him in Atlanta, and followed him to his short stints in Cleveland and Jacksonville. The nickname "Bad Moon" wasn't just a play on his name: his reputation as a malcontent preceded him, such as when he lashed out against boo-bird fans in Cleveland with an obscenity-laced tirade.

But he was also the only receiver available that would legitimately upgrade the receiving corps, and Wolf felt it was worth the risk to the locker room. Besides, Wolf had several aces up his sleeve: Rison wasn't going to be walking on to a young team with a greenhorn head coach. Some of the first faces that Rison encountered entering the locker room were strong, veteran leaders such as Reggie White, Sean Jones, Eugene Robinson, and Don Beebe--men who were on their last ticket to a Super Bowl ring and set the tone for the team.

By his own admission, Rison turned into a "perfect gentleman" and a team player, and the Packers' fortunes immediately turned for the best. With Rison in the lineup, the Packers finished the season 5-0 and dominated the playoffs. In the Super Bowl, "Bad Moon" caught Brett Favre's first pass for an 54-yard touchdown and set the tone for the team victory. Rison's touchdown was more than a fluke play, but a great example of teamwork and communication.

"It was a check off to me," said Rison in 2006. "Antonio would have been outside and I would have been inside. But I was outside, and Free went inside from the outset. Brett relayed the signal and then we hit it."

Rison left the Packers after that season with a Super Bowl ring on his finger and memories that would last for the rest of his life. Wolf apparently wasn't so confident in his attitude (or talent) to keep him around for more than half a season, but he served his purpose with flying colors. Rison never achieved the same glory anywhere else, despite playing for seemingly every other team in the league.

Without Rison, Brooks' injury looked to be a train derailer. Wolf took a risk that might have derailed the team in a different way. Give credit to Wolf for not only making this move to bring in the mercurial hired gun, but having the leadership in the locker room to keep Rison in check.

7. Desmond Howard Desmond may have not been the biggest risk Ron Wolf ever made, but by far, he paid perhaps the highest of dividends. Howard was a big-name, former Heisman winner, former 4th-pick overall that had never blossomed in the NFL as a wide receiver. The Redskins had him returning kicks his first two seasons, then tried to make him focus on starting at WR only. The experiment failed, and he was left exposed in the expansion draft after that season. Jacksonville picked him up in 1995, only to release him after the season. It was starting to look as though Howard was going to be just another draft-day bust.

The Packers signed Howard in July of 1996, just before the start of training camp for a palty one-year contract of $300,000. Certainly, no risk involved for the Packers here...if he didn't pan out, just let him go. But, Wolf didn't need another wide receiver, at least at that moment. Robert Brooks, Antoio Freeman, and Don Beebe were as good of a top-three set in the NFL, and Howard was brought in for one purpose: as a returner.

But the first day of practice, Howard left with a hip pointer and all involved started to believe that this might be the end of the line for the man who originated "the Heisman pose" for future college hopefuls to emulate. At that point, who did Howard turn to? None other than Reggie White, who began prayer sessions with the discouraged former star. Finally, Howard was healthy enough to play in an exhibition game and returned a punt 77 yards for a touchdown.

The rest, as they say, was history. Howard set the NFL record for most punt return yards in a season...shattered it, in fact...and delivered in the playoffs with two return touchdowns against the 49ers and a 99-yard return in the Super Bowl that slammed the door shut on a comeback attempt by the Patriots.

It was, as they say, the perfect storm. Howard had great God-given talent, but like any returner, depended on the blocking he had in front of him in order to succeed. The Packers had a veteran-laden roster, with many veterans (and starters) willing to play special teams. This well-disciplined bunch did their job well, leaving Howard with the hypothetical "one man to beat" on a consistent basis.

Howard went on and suckered Al Davis out of millions of dollars as a free agent a year later, but the impact he had on the Packers' Super Bowl team is forever etched in stone: he won the Most Valuable Player award for the game. Pretty good for a guy signed for a song and who nearly gave up in the preseason.

6. and 5. Santana Dotson and Sean Jones Patty, the draft guru at Packerchatters, has often told me that "you can never have too many defensive linemen", which is why I curtail criticism of the Packers picking up DL in the draft (unless his last name is Harrell). The line is too critical to your defense, and is usually peppered with players prone to injury (and attitude issues). Which is why it may surprise you that the Packers' Super Bowl starting lineup featured a defensive line that wasn't made up of one single Wolf draft pick. Obviously, Reggie White was a free agent and Gilbert Brown (in his first season as a starter) was a waiver pickup from Minnesota.

In fact, Wolf had only invested three draft picks in his 1992-1996 drafts (Darius Holland, Gabe Wilkens, and Shazzon Bradley), and don't forget he had twelve rounds to play with in 1992. No, Wolf knew that the line was where everything on defense started, and as Infante holdovers like John Jurkovic moved on and the draft picks didn't develop quickly, he went out and solved the problem via free agency.

Jones came aboard in 1994, already a force in the NFL. He already had a Pro Bowl under his belt, along with 88-and-a-half sacks while playing for the Raiders and Oilers. Mind you, as Jones became a free agent, Wolf did play his usual game of hardball with him. In the end, the quibble over the last $200,000 of his contract went in the Packers' favor, as Jones realized how special it was going to be to play alongside Reggie White on the Frozen Tundra.

In his three seasons with the Packers, he added another 24-and-a-half sacks to his resume, and while he statistically tailed off during the Super Bowl year, you could attribute that as much to the development of the talent around him as to his age (34).

One big part of that talent was the acquisition of Santana Dotson during the 1996 offseason. Dotson was probably Wolf's easiest sell. Not content with the talent on the roster following the departure of stalwart and popular tackle Jurkovic in 1995, Wolf didn't wait to see who might develop in what he deemed a critical year. He signed Dotson, the former Defensive Rookie of the Year in 1992 for a blue-light special, thanks again to the Packers' #1 recruiter, Reggie White.

"I remember when I was a free agent, Reggie called and when he asked me to be a part of something special, the deal was done," Dotson admitted. "It didn't matter what Ron Wolf said or didn't matter what Larry Brooks, the defensive line coach said. When Reggie called me, and I was at home in Tampa Bay, I was going to Green Bay. It was a done deal."

Together, Dotson, White, Jones, and Gilbert Brown struck fear in the eyes of any offensive line they faced. With Brown able to eat up two blockers and White commanding an extra one, there was no shortage of directions this line could come at you from. The Packers finished with the #1 defense in the NFL that year, in no small part due to the defensive line.

4. Eugene Robinson. The Packers added many veterans at the end of the five-year plan to round out the roster, but few of them made as important an impact as Eugene Robinson. Robinson was a ten-year vet from the Seahawks who relished the opportunity to come to a contender in Green Bay, but the upgrade at free safety over George Teague was very evident because of what it did for LeRoy Butler.

Butler was one of the very few holdovers left from the Infante regime, and he moved from cornerback to strong safety, and he was the prototype. He loved playing close to the line, loved helping in run support, and loved to rush the quarterback. But Teague wasn't a strong enough free safety to hold his own in the backfield and allow Butler to wreack havok near the line of scrimmage, so Butler's opportunities were limited.

Enter Robinson, a natural quarterback of the defense whose instincts and speed allowed Butler more freedom to roam, and that he did: Butler never had more than one sack in any of his previous six seasons, but with Robinson alongside him, he piled up 6.5 sacks in 1996 and another 3 in 1997. Many of us remember Butler's play in those Super Bowl seasons, counting up his sacks and often seeing him disrupting plays as linemen were occupied blocking Reggie White and Co.

In addition, Robinson was another leader of the team, a vocal veteran who took his turn in the locker room with inspirational speeches. While he became the butt of jokes later on after joining the Atlanta Falcons in 1998 and being arrested for an offer of prostitution (the same day he was awarded the Bart Starr Award for his "high moral character"), there's no doubt that he made an impact on the Super Bowl Champion Packers with his efforts both on and off the field.

In 1996, not only did the Packers finish #1 in overall defense, but #1 in overall pass defense. Robinson's prototypical free safety play and control of everything happening in front of him, was a huge part of keeping that ranking when the rushers didn't get to the quarterback.

3. The hiring of Mike Holmgren. Now, in retrospect, The Walrus seems like a no-brainer today, but in reality, he was the third-year offensive coordinator of a team that had been steered by Bill Walsh for many years before that. Moreso, he had no head coaching experience at any level. Not everyone was convinced that Holmgren was going to suddenly turn the Packers into the 49ers, especially when our defense was just as anemic as our offense, which most expected Holmgren to focus on.

The decision to go with the high-potential assistant coach as opposed to a veteran coach (Wolf had considered both Bill Parcells and Chuck Knox) was a big risk to take, especially when you consider that Holmgren was still under contract, and the 49ers were not willing to release him without compensation from the team who wanted him.

But Holmgren was the darling of NFL teams in January 1992, leaving his interview in Green Bay without a contract and began a tour of other teams with head coaching vacancies. Wolf knew this was the guy he wanted, but played a delicate game to not put himself in a position to seem desperate or to give his new coach too much power. Finally, on January 11, the Packers signed Holmgren as head coach, and sent their second-round pick to the 49ers as compensation for allowing him to break his contract with them. Such compensation is a rarity in the NFL, both then and now, as most coordinators have verbiage in their contract that allow them to take another job as long as it is a promotion. Other teams simply allow a man to break their contract as a good faith move. But, the 49ers played hardball, and there are many GMs that would have hedged at giving a conference rival an extra first-day pick.

In the end, whomever the Packers could have gotten in the second round paled in comparison to the young coach who brought the team together on the field. And, in 1995 and 1996, the Packers happily gave the 49ers a little payback in the playoffs for that lost pick.

2) The trade for Brett Favre. At one point in Brett Favre's struggles in the early 1990's, Mike Holmgren had to look at his undisciplined protege and tell him, "Listen, you and I are attached at the hip." If one went down, they both went down. And both would have Ron Wolf to thank for it.

Wolf's trade for Favre is well-documented and is still listed as one of the most lopsided trades in NFL history, yet you would have a hard time convincing anyone of that at the time. I remember watching the 1991 NFL draft and hoping the Packers would draft this kid with the funny last name, but the Falcons scooped him up two picks before the Packers' second rounder. After the Packers picked Esera Tuaolo with that pick, the New York Jets picked Browning Nagle, but a certain Jets' personnel director had been equally disappointed when Favre had been selected. That man was Ron Wolf.

The next year, when Wolf was in the Packers' fold, he designated two key positions he needed to fill to establish leadership on the team, and that was head coach and quarterback. After getting Holmgren in January, he set his sights on Favre, who was toiling as a third-string quarterback with Atlanta and had laughable stats in very limited playing time.

Moreso, Favre was becoming a discipline problem: a partier that refused to prepare, take coaching, or show up on time. He was a diva that felt he should be starting ahead of Pro Bowler Chris Miller, and rebelled against coach Jerry Glanville's attempts to shape him up. The divide grew wider as Glanville told Falcon GM Ken Herock that while Herock could force Favre to take up a roster spot, he wouldn't do anything else besides hold a clipboard.

Can you say, "risk"? Certainly, Favre's behavior over the last few years certainly would corroborate the Favre we've heard about in Atlanta but didn't think existed anymore. But Wolf was keenly aware of these issues with Favre and felt that he could get him for a first-round pick. In reality, he might have gotten him for a fourth rounder had he played it out, but Herock wanted to prove his pick as worthy, despite everyone else in his organization telling him it was a waste.

Now, at the time, most of us knew Favre was a project and "the quarterback of the future". A first-round pick for a guy who was a second-rounder the year before and had done nothing to improve on his value since was the very definition of "risk". But Wolf knew even more about Favre's behavior at the time than most of us did, which makes the move even more daring.

In the end, Favre captured three MVP trophies and the hearts of many Packer fans who dared to hold him up to Bart Starr in comparison. Perhaps there is no higher praise for a Packer quarterback. In the end, Wolf trusted the scouting he had done a year earlier and did what it took to get the player he believed had the potential to be better than just another good quarterback.

1) Reggie. After Wolf's and Holmgren's first season, the Packers were back on their way to respectability. They improved to 9-6, winning six in a row in the second half of the season. Favre had taken over as the starter and had already began to capture the imagination of the fans with his youthful, risk-taking play. Sterling Sharpe benefited immediately from the West Coast Offense, catching 108 balls and becoming Favre's favorite target. And yet, in a transitional year, a rebuilding year, there was still this feeling that not all the pieces were there. The team's nucleus was getting younger, there was the feeling that the team needed some glue to hold it together.

What they got was cement. And they got it using the newly-implemented free agency, allowing an already legendary player still in his prime to go to the highest bidder. Six teams began lobbying for Reggie White's attention, whose contract had expired with Philadelphia. Many of the contenders were the usual suspects; New York, Washington, Atlanta. But one of the teams in the bidding was new to the table: the Packers. No one expected the Packers to ever be serious with big-time players.

That is, until this penultimate day. Ron Wolf and the Green Bay Packers had come to play, and they played well. Reggie was given a tour of the Green Bay Packer Hall of Fame, instead of wined and dined at exclusive restaurants. Wolf and Holmgren weren't afraid to invoke the spirits of the Glory Years to speak to the tradition of the the Packers, instead of the Siberia reputation it had developed during the Lean Years. Holmgren made comical phone messages pretending to be God, telling the spiritual White that Green Bay was The Promised Land.

But in the end, Ron Wolf made perhaps the biggest move in Packer history, outbidding the big players and offering White a four-year, $17-million contract, at that point the biggest for a defensive player in NFL history. It also set in motion the template for unrestricted free agency that we still see today. For the usually financially-tight Packers, this was the very definition of "opening the coffers" and shelling out the money for the big-time players.

And, in the end, Reggie White was the glue that bonded this team together. His on-the-field ferociousness was matched by his locker room spiritual leadership. Furthermore, his signing brought legitimacy to the Packers, leading other veteran players to believe there was something good happening up in Green Bay.

Because of his MVP honors, there are many that would say that Favre was the bigger move than White's, but I have to disagree. Without White, the Packers would not have been a #1 overall defense in 1996, and Favre alone would not have attracted so many free agents (particularly on defense) to come to Green Bay at a cut-rate price. Favre obviously was a huge part of the team, but White is the one that made the team. In order to bring White here, though, Wolf had to spend an amount of money that likely made many long-time board members pass out in the meeting room.

----

So, there you have my list of Wolf's Top Ten Moves, the biggest risks he took along the way to bringing a third Lombardi Trophy to Green Bay. Obviously, I didn't include Wolf's many draft selections in this list, simply because those aren't "risks" asmuch as they are a result of scouting and, oftentimes, luck. While Mark Chmura, Edgar Bennett, and Antonio Freeman all played key roles in the building of a Super Bowl champion, this article was meant to note the high-risk/reward that comes along with moves like trades and free agency, and how he used it to turn this team into a champion.

We also have to note that not everything Wolf did turned to gold. For every Andre Rison, there was a Mark Clayton. For each Santana Dotson he brought in, there was a Bryce Paup he let get away. But when the end result is a Lombardi Trophy, everything gleams like gold, and the black marks seem to get lost in the luster.

I'm sure there are some names I left off this list that some will disagree with: Keith Jackson, Gilbert Brown, Jim McMahon, Don Beebe all come to mind as honorable mentions. These are my top ten moves that Wolf had to pull the trigger on...feel free to comment and voice your opinions!
----
* The NFL playoffs expanded to include a third wild-card team in 1990. Had that happened a year earlier, the Cardiac Pack would have made it in to the post-season.

Random Thoughts

noreply@blogger.com (C.D. Angeli) — Mon, 03 May 2010 01:44:00 +0000

So, I'm on a long drive home from a weekend in Viking Country, and am experimenting with a mobile blog entry from a microscopic keypad. Since I have little to look at, I'l just offer some random thoughts until my thumbtips are too calloused to continue.

* For all he has done well over the years, one of Ted Thompson's black eyes has been his inability to adequately replace our aging tackles. It was pretty clear last year at this time that Clifton and Tausch were potentially Plan B if TT could help it. Ten OL in five drafts, and yet we are still throwing money at our aging tackles because we had no one else on the roster we could trust to take over.

Enter the freefalling Bryan Bulaga, who for whatever reason dropped out of the top ten and to the Packers at #23. He comes off as Packer People and a guy you think has a far better shot than many of the other guys TT has brought in.

TT did little else than pull the trigger when his turn came up...it's not like he orchestrated a trade like he did for Clay Matthews. Maybe he was lucky that BB lasted that long.

Thompson is a good scout and a good drafter. But when it comes to drafting offensive linemen, and particularly tackles, he might be better off lucky than good.

* I seem to take a shine to a long-shot RB each preseason, and Starks might be this year's Tyrell Sutton. Starks sounded winded after rookie camp, and there has to be a level of alert for the kid who hasn't played for nearly a year. Time to stick around in GB and hang with the trainers and get back in playing shape.

Starks has boom or bust written on him, a coulda-been second rounder that the Packers got for a throwaway sixth- rounder. Another injury-prone Brandon Jackson, or a potential backup and future starter? Didn't we spend a sixth on Ryan Grant?

Here's hoping...

* Is the selection of Quarrels a statement on the fading of Donald Lee? Or the doubts surrounding Spencer Havner's legal issues? Or wanting to match Jermichael Finley's explosive playmaking potential?

Regardless of the reason, I plead caution. Both Finley and Quarrels are receivers first. Great receivers, yes, but blocking is secondary for these guys.

Finley showed good improvement in his blocking last year, but this is still a critical concern when you think about the number of sacks Rodgers took last season. Add to that the potential declines of Tausch/Clifton and the developing of successors, having that sixth blocker on the line isn't just nicw to have, it could eventually become a necessity.

No gloom and doom, just hoping McAdoo has some way to turn these guys into Chmura and Jackson...guys who were solid in blocking and playmaking.

Thompson to TundraVision: Happy now? I took a safety.

noreply@blogger.com (C.D. Angeli) — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 01:26:00 +0000

Is Ted Thompson doing this just to placate me? For years I have harped on the need for a prime time free safety for the Packers, and in the third round of the draft this year, Thompson traded up in order to take Morgan Burnett, a safety from Georgia Tech, and keep him from going to the Bears.

Now, I don't mind trading up to prevent a division rival from getting a player they are salivating over, but hey...if we're playing that game, it might have been nice to have pulled the wool over on the Lions when they selected Suh.

I like Burnett, who has a lot of athleticism and potential to be a more solid partner with Nick Collins than oft-injured Atari Bigby. And, let's face it...injuries at safety meant that we were literally looking to start Jarrett Bush and Matt Giordano during a game last season. Depth is a problem, and this selection goes a long way in fixing that problem.

Burnett, however, fits that same mold that Thompson has been going for at safety for years: hard-hitting, solid tackling, aggressive strong safety-type that is going to come in and give us some ear-popping hits. And, I'll be honest, I'm excited to see how he develops.

My concern comes in with his negatives, the same ones we've seen with Collins, Bigby, Manuel...they are all so solid in run support and tackling, but struggle in coverage. "Slow to react....questionable instincts and awareness".

I've been looking for that Eugene Robinson for so long to come in and be the instinctive quarterback of the defense, and allow Nick Collins to become LeRoy Butler, creating chaos closer to the line of scrimmage, knowing the back of the defense is in good hands. I would have been thrilled with Eric Berry, Earl Thomas, or Nate Allen, who tend to fit that FS mold.

But, with Burnett, we get a definite influx of talent and excitement in the backfield, and perhaps most importantly, a ballhawk that can continue the recent trend of interceptions, led by Charles Woodson and Collins.

The only thing that worries me are games like the Steeler or Cardinal games, when we need that coverage to be there and stops to be made. In order for Burnett to make this defense better, he will need to develop those skills as a strong free safety to compliment Collins.

However, assuming Collins keeps his free safety title, Burnett does seem like the kind of player that could become another Butler, too. A good pick, good end to Day 2.

Pack Takes Boilermaker Neal in Second Round

noreply@blogger.com (C.D. Angeli) — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 00:34:00 +0000

Repeat after me: you can never have too many defensive linemen.

This was a mantra I learned from Patty over at Packerchatters, something that I've had to tell myself anytime I perceive that the Packers have stretched for a defensive lineman in the draft.

The Packers may have compensated for their high-value pickup of Bryan Bulaga in the first by making a slight stretch for Mike Neal, a defensive tackle from Purdue that many draft pundits had as a third-rounder. Like many young defensive tackles, he seems to have many of the tools, but lacks consistency and/or motivation.

Naturally, when you take a player like this at #56, you wonder if he might still have been available at #86. But, I'm not going to throw too many darts for a couple of reasons:

1) I've learned from past experience that if I criticize a pick, there's a vocal fan base that labels me a Thompson Hater Who Doesn't Have the Job Qualifications To Be An NFL GM, which I can live with. Sure, I may have been right all along on Justin Harrell, but I have also been proven wrong on enough occasions when I thought Thompson had reached for a pick (Collins, Finley, Matthews) that I am willing to wait and see.

2) I think there were positions of greater need than the defensive line, but a lot of the guys we had been pining for (Mays at safety, Kindle at OLB) had already been snagged. And, looking at the best available players, very few names jumped out at me. In fact, most of the names that were still available were offensive tackles (Campbell, Brown, Veldheer), a position the Packers already addressed. One name that was intriguing me was corner Alterraun Verner, but again, he's a guy who might also make it to pick #86.

3) You can never have too many defensive linemen.

So, the jury will be out on Mr. Neal, but we'll give him every opportunity to prove he belongs as one of our beloved Green Bay Packers. On to the third round.

Thompson Catches a Falling Star in First Round...Again

noreply@blogger.com (C.D. Angeli) — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 21:24:00 +0000

Ted Thompson has to be wondering how he struck gold twice in six years.

In 2005, Thompson ran his first draft as GM of the Packers, and while pundits dreamed of players named Erasmus James or Matt Jones to fall to Green Bay at pick #24, no one was more surprised to see one-time #1 overall candidate Aaron Rodgers free-fall out of the top ten and into Thompson’s lap.

None of us can complain much about how that pick has turned out for the Packers in the long run, but last night, history may have repeated itself. As we concerned ourselves about names like Jerry Hughes or Devin McCourty, Thompson had to be tickled to find top 10 talent Bryan Bulaga, one of the top-rated offensive tackles, still sitting on the board when the Packers’ went on the clock at #23.

Ironically enough, many of us in the chatrooms and live blogs were calling for Thompson to actually trade up to get Bulaga in the middle of the teens. Good things come to those who wait, and kudos to Thompson for being patient (and likely working the phones to find where other teams’ interests were heading).

I have often detracted the opinions of others who declare Thompson’s selection of Aaron Rodgers as a genius move. In fact, I’ve called it a no-brainer…when gold falls in your lap, do you pick it up and put it in your pocket? But I have to admit there was a level of uncertainty as we waited for the Packers to bring their pick up to the podium? What is wrong with Bulaga? Why is he dropping? Do the GM’s all know something we don’t?

In fact, some folks began speculating on Balaga’s medical history, insinuating that he may have a neurological disorder. While I haven’t been able to find much to corroborate that as truth, it does go to prove that certain players may plummet in the draft, simply from one team watching other teams passing on him, and figuring he must be damaged goods.

So, while it does seem like a no-brainer, I’m sure there was a bit of tenseness at taking the falling star, a guy who was once cited as the most overrated player in the draft. He wasn’t on a lot of our radars, because we never expected him to make it to #23.

So what did the Packers get with this pick: an Iowa farmboy that looks the part of offensive tackle, reminding you ever so slightly of Adam Timmerman without quite as severe of a flattop. He was the Big Ten Lineman of the Year last year and a second-team All-American. He was the fourth tackle taken, and obviously has a couple more blemishes than perhaps some of the men taken before him.

He fits the ol’ Packer Zone Blocking mentality, which means they love their linemen to be flexible. Bulaga can play either tackle position and could even sub in at guard. He’s a big man: 315 pounds and 6’5”, but only 33 inch arms. There’s some question as to his athleticism and his ability to go against the speed rushers, but there is confidence in his ability to run block.

If there is a dark side to all of this, it is that Thompson has drafted ten offensive linemen in his first five drafts, and still has been unable to come up with a competent replacement for Mark Tauscher and Chad Clifton, who went from penciled out of the lineup last year to some big-time contract extensions this offseason. Filling your line with project players instead of studs can come back to haunt you, and the number of times Aaron Rodgers was running for his life last season is a testament to the theory that standing pat may not be enough in 2010.

Bryan Bulaga may not end up being a Pro Bowler, but the Packers invested a top pick onto a top-ranked talent that should upgrade one side of their offensive line for years to come. If nothing else, we finally have someone for Tauscher or Clifton to hand off the baton to when their tenure is done.

Packers Pick Tonight!

noreply@blogger.com (C.D. Angeli) — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:06:00 +0000

The Packers will be waiting until pick #23 tonight before making their first selection in the 2010 Draft. A plethora of "needs" come to mind, and yet, none are as pressing a need as we've had in the past. The Packers are definitely making picks for the future, whether it be selecting an heir apparent for Chad Clifton and Mark Tauscher, or an heir apparent for Charles Woodson and Al Harris.

About the only position that seems to truly stand out as a "need" lately is the OLB spot opposite of Clay Matthews, which is why for many pundits out there, Jerry Hughes, the linebacker from Texas Christian, appears to be the odds-on favorite. Running a close second in safety Taylor Mays, the USC physical monster that some folks think could be moved up to OLB if he didn't pan out replacing Atari Bigby.

Two things I have learned from watching Ted Thompson draft over the last five years:

* He never does what you expect (other than drafting AJ Hawk in 2006). The rumors last week that he was "very interested" in bust-in-the-making OT Bruce Campbell was likely a smokescreen. Or was it? Just when you have him pegged for trading down, he pulls off the most unpredictable trade-up in Packer history.

* Everybody is a genius when it comes to predicting NFL talent until after Thompson makes his picks. Everette Brown seemed to be everyone's darling up until Thompson passed on him twice in the draft last year, and suddenly, everyone flopped and said what a one-dimensional tweener he was.

So, I don't put too much stock into what everyone is predicting for the slot at #23 until after pick #23 has gone by.

My prediction, bound to be wrong, as usual: There's too much talent similar to what is in the end of the first round to take right away. I think that Thompson trades out of the first round and we end up with very little to talk about until tomorrow. In the second round, I see a secondary pickup like Nate Allen or Devin McCourty and a offensive lineman like Jared Veldheeer or John Jerry.

My dark horse prediction would be something we haven't seen from Thompson yet: a trade of the first rounder for a veteran player. Don't know who, but we've known Thompson to have such trades on the table in the past (Randy Moss), and this might be the year to trade for that prove pass-rusher to play opposite of Matthews.

Cheesehead Nation Live Draft Blogcast!

noreply@blogger.com (C.D. Angeli) — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 21:38:00 +0000

NFL Draft Round 1

Signings Aside, Can the Packer Upgrade Their 2009 Roster?

noreply@blogger.com (C.D. Angeli) — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:29:00 +0000

There's been much celebration over the past few days in Packerland...another successful Fan Fest was held at Lambeau Field, and the Packers were able to bring in a couple of beloved veterans back into the fold with some hefty in-house free agent signings. There's a lot of optimism brewing for the Packers, and its nice to have some good offseason news (despite the loss of Aaron Kampman).

So much so, that Mike Vandermause echoes some of the giddiness many Packer fans have exuberantly chanted the past couple days, indicating this is a sign of great things to come.

Thompson is so high on his team that he’s willing to invest major dollars to lock down some of the core players.

“I thought we had a good team,” Thompson said. “In fact, I thought we had a team that could play a few games in the playoffs and we just got in a shootout and couldn’t get out of it.”

Translation: Thompson believes he has a Super Bowl contender on his hands and is willing to pay big bucks to keep it together.

Now, Vandermause has never seen a move by Ted Thompson he didn't gush over, and these signings are no exception. And personally, I've already stated that these are the kind of moves that are wise ones to make in an uncertain transitional period of free agency. I give Thompson credit for having the discipline to stay within a budget (unlike several other NFC North teams) in a time when overspending with no cap could really come back to haunt you later.

But, I want to throw in this cautionary nugget: keeping your own players in this era of free agency is a wise move in any offseason (and this one in particular), but it is maintaining the level of talent that we had last season, not necessarily adding to it.

And, it's not like last year's talent level was anything to be ashamed of in the least. The Packers rebounded from a depressing 2008 with an 11-5 record and league-leading offensive and defensive squads. Pro Bowl players on both sides of the ball represented the team, and young players like Clay Matthews and Jermichael Finely added new and exciting dimensions. The Packers made the playoffs in a season not many predicted them to. They have solid leaders on both sides of the ball under contract, with Aaron Rodgers and Charles Woodson taking on the roles as the field generals for their squads.

But the Packers did fold twice under the pressure of facing hated division rival Minnesota last year, and late in the season saw their top-ranked defense completely sieve against the Steelers and Cardinals (the latter in a playoff game). In order to truly be a Super Bowl contender, the Packers have to figure out how to shore up those weaknesses: there are no patsies in the playoffs, and the Packers have to come to the game loaded for bear.

The goal for any NFL team, particularly one on the rise as the Packers have been, is how to make the product on the field better than it was last year, more complete. And, many of us have noted that an upgrade at just a couple of positions...safety, nickel back, outside linebacker, guard/tackle...may spell the difference between a playoff win and a playoff loss.

And the Packers have taken one solid step towards that goal: keeping many of their solid vets in the fold. Kampman is a loss, especially as a solid team leader, but the guys they kept (Collins, Tauscher, Clifton, and Pickett) are all penciled in as starters at positions they have excelled in over their entire career. For a team that seems to be perpetually the youngest team in the league, year after year, this is a solid statement by Thompson that this team is no longer in building mode, but in "we're here" mode.

The amounts of money that has been thrown at these four players, however, has to be a strong indicator that Thompson is (wisely) going to stay out of the outside free agent market, and I couldn't agree that this year is a good one to play five-card stud instead of drawing from the deck.

So, this leads me to two important questions: is it possible to upgrade the talent on the roster while staying fiscally responsible in this transition year? And, if the answer is yes, what is the wisest route to go about doing it?

The Draft: By most accounts, this draft is going to be one of the deepest in a long time, with many recruits bailing out of college early in the hopes of avoiding a possible rookie salary schedule in the future. The chances are quite high that you can get a kid that was a first-round talent last year in the second- or -third- round this year.

I've already put my money down on such a player--Nate Allen, as free safety from FSU. This smart, ball-hawking safety might have cost the Packers their 23rd overall pick in another year, but this year he will likely last until the second or perhaps even the third round.

But most of us know that putting your faith in a rookie to come in and be a solid upgrade right away is wishful thinking. Clay Matthews is by far the exception than the rule, and even Thompson's relatively good road record on draft day hasn't produced many impact starters right away. The fact that the rookies would have to supplant players on an 11-5 team make it an even tougher challenge: it's not like you're trying to upgrade from Wil Whittaker and Samkon Gado anymore.

The chances are far greater that you may find a tackle and safety of the future in the first couple of rounds, but when it comes to getting the Packers over the one-and-done playoff hump, that may be a little long to wait.

In-house Improvement: the Packers have several project players that they would love to see mature this season and truly bring the competition that Mike McCarthy covets in training camp.

The offensive line has to be Thompson's Achilles Heel over his tenure, hoping that mid-round picks would be able to compete and create a solid offensive line. However, the huge contract extensions offered to Clifton and Tauscher is a sign that, after five drafts and ten offensive linemen drafted, the Pack still haven't found anyone to replace the aging holdovers from the Sherman regime.

On the roster, the Packers have a couple of linemen they would love to see mature into solid starting-caliber players, most notably T.J. Lang, who played as a fill-in as a rookie and may project into one of the tackle spots. Breno Guacamole also has a lot of size and many were hoping he also would be able to come in last season and contribute, but spent most game days on the inactive squad.

The Packers should have back their starting front three on defense, but question marks still cloud the future of Johnny Jolly (though, I will be the first to admit, if I ever get in trouble with the law, I sure would like to know the name of Jolly's lawyer). It is pretty much consensus that Justin Harrell, Thompson's ill-fated first round pick from 2007, is already a foregone conclusion to be a non-factor again this season (and likely gone in preseason if he struggles). However, if for some reason Harrell were to even show the consistency and ability to be a rotational player, it would be a tremendous addition to the line.

At linebacker, the Packers have lost Aaron Kampman, and now have an open spot opposite Clay Matthews at OLB. Several players could not only take that spot over, but possibly upgrade AJ Hawk in the middle. Brad Jones did a yeoman's job in relief of an injured Kampman last year, but disappeared at critical times. A year of growth and maturity may mean that Jones can win that spot outright. Another player we could see taking a step forward is Jeremy Thompson, a guy who shone during minicamps last year but wilted when the pads came on. He's built for a 3-4 OLB position, and if he were to take that step forward, the Packers would be all the better for it. Brandon Chillar and Des Bishop are also chomping at the bit to see if they can take over full-time inside, leaving Hawk on the bench (and perhaps available for trade).

Defensive back is the thinnest area right now, which might seem surprising when you consider that three out of the four starters were named to the Pro Bowl over the last two seasons. Yet, Al Harris will again be a question mark coming off on injury, and while super-sub Tramon Williams is solid in relief, he's a step down from Harris and the nickel position is subsequently an even further drop. Two players that could really bolster the cornerback position with a sudden maturing process would be both Will Blackmon, a return specialist who struggled in regular coverage, and Pat Lee, the former second-round pick who has struggled to stay healthy. Brandon Underwood also got some playing time last season with a mixed bag of results.

At safety, the prospects are even worse. Atari Bigby is the defacto starter, but has yet to regain his 2007 form as he recovers from injuries. He's another strong safety type, like Collins, who struggles more in coverage. Behind Bigby are just two players: Derrrick Martin and Jarrett Bush, both of whom appear to be special team players and servicable backups, not the kind of players who will upgrade your starting lineup.

So, there are possibilities to improve from within, with offensive tackle and safety being the positions with the thinnest talent potential behind the starters.

Trade: This is pretty much unheard of in the Thompson era, but isn't completely out of the question. Thompson shocked us all last season with a massive trade-up in the draft, so there's the possibility he may be interested in trading away a draft pick or peripheral player for a good player with a contract in place.

Brian Carriveau over at Railbird Central proposed such a trade today, with the Packers offering a tendered Daryn Colledge to Oakland for inside linebacker Kirk Morrison (also tendered). While that may not be the trade I'd pull off, it would send a disgruntled Colledge elsewhere, and likely bring in a good player just thrilled to no longer be working for Al Davis.

Obviously, I'd rather see an offensive tackle or a free safety coming to the Packers for Colledge, but those positions are a little harder to find and a lot more expensive. Unlike Morrison, however, the player we might be looking for in trade doesn't have to be another RFA waiting to sign a tender: every team tends to have an overload at some position that makes a player expendable.

Heck, I'd be willing to trade Colledge to the Raiders for Michael Huff, the safety we bypassed in 2007 to take AJ Hawk. Yeah, he's struggled, but I like to believe he was played out of position for several years. He's a natural free safety that was pigeonholed as a strong safety to start, and struggled as a result. If a new situation and good surroundings could help him find the talent that made a 7th-overall pick, why not take that risk?

Close To The Vest Approach The Wisest Move This Offseason

noreply@blogger.com (C.D. Angeli) — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 03:55:00 +0000

It's not often you would ever hear me say this, but allow the words to roll off my tongue: Thompson is playing it close to the vest in free agency, and it's a darn good idea.

Thus far, Ted Thompson has utilized a series of tenders to keep many of his restricted free agents in the fold, re-signed Chad Clifton for another three years, and generally avoided free agency like the plague. Any other year, I would be grumbling about his reticence to make any type of splash to bring in some talent from the outside, instead of waiting for his draft picks to eventually (and hopefully) develop.

But this year, the rules have changed, and with the prospects of an uncapped year and the uncertainty of the collective bargaining agreement, teams are able to spend without a ceiling or a floor...at least until terms are reached. If the Packers had a free-wheeling GM at the helm who felt shackled by the cap all these years, this would be a very dangerous time for a small-market team.

We don't like to compare ourselves to teams like the Cowboys or the Redskins that doesn't present the Packers in the best light, but the facts are facts; the Packers may be the best small-market team built to survive, but in the end, they are still revenue-limited when matched up against the teams from D.C., Dallas, New York, or Boston.

So, while I've gone from complaining to accepting-the-inevitable every year for the last five offseasons (as Thompson's fiscal responsibility would reach exasperating levels), this year is different. In 2006, when Thompson talked about building for the long haul and keeping the team competitive year-in and year-out, it frustrated those fans who wanted to see the string of NFC North championships continue. But in 2010, that long haul has a different connotation: the "long haul" means through what may end up becoming an assortment of revenue, contract, and sharing changes that do not favor the Packers or other small-market teams.

It's not a plan that is designed to bring a championship to Green Bay next year. But, it is a wise decision that keeps the team competitive on the field and on the ledger.

Some of the tenders offered to our restricted free agents sent a pretty significant signal that Thompson is willing to hang on to his draftees, even if they haven't been lights-out over the past few years. Anyone who has read my blog knows that I've been calling for a safety upgrade for years, and yet, the Packers placed a 1st/3rd tender on Nick Collins (good move) and a 2nd rounder on Atari Bigby. Many of us have been ready to write Bigby off, scouring the free agent market and the 2010 draft class for potential replacements. Now, he has 1.7 million reasons to continue to start opposite Collins this upcoming year.

The oft-maligned offensive line also appears ready to remain the same. Second-round tenders on both Daryn Colledge and Jason Spitz, darlings of Thompson's second draft class, will keep them in the fold and in the starting lineup. Colledge came under increased criticism this past season, leading many to believe the Packers would look to upgrade.

Perhaps the most eye-raising move was the $20 million dollars given to aging tackle Chad Clifton, with $7.5M guaranteed. It's a thin free agent market when both Clifton and Tauscher top the list of the best tackles available, despite the belief no less than a year ago that both players would have been replaced by this time. Without parting with some serious talent in trade, trading up every draft pick we have to get a top prospect, or breaking the bank for another mixed-bag of free agent talent, the Packers decided that keeping Clifton in-house was the best move.

I'm not criticizing the moves...in fact, I am acknowledging that they were wise ones in the face of the today's uncertain future. While many of us no more than a couple of months ago were scheming up ways to replace Clifton, Bigby, and Colledge in the lineup, Thompson decided that the status quo was the way to go.

I would guess that Thompson will continue this approach through the offseason and the draft, eschewing all but the most bargain-basement of free agents and likely returning to his preference of trading back in the draft. One might even guess that his out-of-character trade-up for Clay Matthews in the 2009 draft may have been not only for CM3's talent, but because he could see the storm on the horizon and knew that might be the last draft that he could risk that many picks for one player, at least for the foreseeable future.

I don't begrudge Thompson for his approach, but there has to be a general disappointment in the timing of the expiring of the CBA. The Packers finished 11-5 and had perhaps their most dramatic season in years. One could look at both sides of the ball in 2009 and feel like both squads were just a player or two away from dominance.

I could see the optimism rising for some bold moves (perhaps bolstered by Thompson's already-bold statement in trading up for Matthews), that the time had finally arrived for the Packers to sign some crusty, savvy old veterans to come in and fill in at safety, along the offensive line, outside linebacker, and along the defensive line. Was it time for our Sean Jones, Eugene Robinson, and Keith Jackson to not only complete the roster, but bring a level of maturity to this "forever young" team?

No, Thompson's moves are not designed to take this team over the hump and make us instant Super Bowl contenders, but he doesn't make the rules he has to play by. I would be far more critical of Thompson's approach if he were idiotically signing free agents left and right, not unlike a certain team south of the Wisconsin-Illinois border. Another year, under the old rules? Sure. But not this year.

Maybe I am wrong, and Thompson is just waiting to unload a barrage of trades and signings in the next few weeks. But I have a feeling we have Conservative Ted back in the captain's chair, ready to sign a couple of no-name free agents, trade back to select lesser-known players from smaller colleges, and to build from within, for better or worse.

Any other year I'd probably be complaining. This year, while it may not be the moves that make the Packers a winner, it's still the winning move.
--------
Restricted Free Agent Tender graphic courtesy of JSOnline

Mea Culpa

noreply@blogger.com (C.D. Angeli) — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 02:30:00 +0000

It’s not often that I have to come back to admit a mistake (or, perhaps more honestly, it’s not often I admit a mistake), but I think that the time has come.

Yesterday, I penned an article that could be described as “poorly-thought out”, but in reality, it really wasn’t thought out much at all. Gotta admit it. I didn’t see the blurb about Kampman’s signing to Jacksonville until late in the evening, and went immediately to put an “I told you so” article on the blog.

The responses I’ve gotten to the article, particularly over at PackerChatters, have been rather scathing: some deserved, and some not so much. The one thing I will offer is that I have had a lot of distractions from All Things Packers over the last month or so, and have not had my pulse on the daily ins-and-outs or the usual draft and offseason build-up that I usually do. I don’t offer that as an excuse, but simply as a cautionary tale to myself to not jump back in the saddle cold turkey, without having my usual awareness of what's been going on.

The tone of the article, in particular, was poorly executed. The “toldja so” made things come off as if I were trying to prove someone else wrong (interpreted by most as being “the Packer administration”), and that wasn’t my intent. What I wish I would have communicated better was to say “aw-shucks”, kick a rock, and wish we had decided to trade away a quality guy to a place he could have been successful last season, and gotten something in return…a win-win situation for everyone. That's what my April 2009 article clearly stated, and that sentiment is one that I still stand by.

Now, look. I am a Packer fan first, and a writer second. I am not bound by the alleged rules of journalism and neutral, unbiased writing (not that most real, live journalists abide by that nowadays, either). I write from the heart and from my head, and I will be the first to admit that I have a critical view of Ted Thompson. I have no qualms about offering criticism towards him or towards anyone in the Packer organization. Or, out of it.

But, I do believe that I maintain a balance in that writing, and do my best to present even my criticism in a fair manner. I also go out of my way to offer praise for the Packer brass when they do well (and when they prove some of my theories wrong, such as the Clay Matthews trade-up).

Not having my facts in order is something that I should be called out on, and to be honest, I appreciate it when readers do. I want to improve as a writer, and keeping my facts straight should be Job #1. I didn’t do so in the article I wrote yesterday, and the criticism I took for it is deserved and respected.

Toldja So: Kampman To Jags, Packers With Nothing

noreply@blogger.com (C.D. Angeli) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 03:43:00 +0000

A little less than a year ago, I postulated that the Packers might be better off trying to trade Aaron Kampman in his contract year, particularly in light of the fact they'd be moving him to an OLB that few believed would be seamless. Even moreso, Kampman was clearly unhappy with the move.

But, no, I was told. Kampman is our best defensive player, and there is no way you move him. He's going to be just fine in the 3-4.

Verdict: Even before his injury, Kampman was, at times, painful to watch in coverage. As the season wore on, Dom Capers starting putting him up occasionally at the line, sometimes with a hand on the ground, and you could see the old Kampman was still there. But his production was greatly diminished and led to the sunrise of rookie Clay Matthews and Brad Jones, both of whom appeared to be more effective as rookies than the old veteran.

I again made the proposal that the Packers should trade Kampman before the trade deadline: contract expiring, and we saw the transition problems already by that point. Again, I was told not to worry, that the Packers would either keep him, or get something of significance in return, as they would likely do a tag-and-trade as they did with Corey Willians.

Verdict: Neither. The Jacksonville Jaguars signed Kampman today as an unrestricted free agent. The Packers get no compensation, and the Jaguars not only get a great player, but a great human being and locker room leader.

In many ways, I can't be unhappy for Kampman, who deserved to finish his career with a team willing to maximize his talents, and that wasn't going to be Green Bay as long as they were running a 3-4.

But, I am confused on the Packers' approach to perhaps their most valuable defensive player aside from Charles Woodson. Not to bring up the F-word, but when general manager Ted Thompson claimed that the Packers had to get value for retired/unretired Brett Favre, they nearly drove the team into the ground trying to finagle a middling draft choice. Yet, Kampman was allowed to leave unfettered and with the Packers empty-handed.

This makes very little sense to me. With the uncertainty of the collective bargaining agreement, it seems evident thus far that Thompson is taking a cautionary approach to the offseason, tagging average players such as Daryn Colledge and re-signing Chad Clifton simply because it would be too expensive to upgrade their positions through free agency. Again, it appears that Thompson will be relying on the draft even more heavily in the face of the capless year.

So why, after holding out to garner a mere third round draft pick for Favre, did the Packers sit on Aaron Kampman over the last year and not put themselves in a position to get something in return? Sure, trading him sight unseen in the new scheme during last year's offseason would have been a daring move, but may have landed them a first-rounder, easily (as well as clearing some cap room). Once it was clear that Kampman wasn't going to be the same player in the new defense after four preseason games and a couple of regular season games, would anyone have really been upset about trading him out of the NFC for a second-round pick?

And why would you not place a tender on him and at least attempt to trade him? You have to admit that he would certainly garner a mid-round pick, at least, and then he would happily restructure his deal with his new team. Could be the exact same contract with the exact same team, but the Packers may have an extra third rounder to boot.

The draft picks become even more important this year: the Vikings are already a step up on the Packers, and as the Bears and Lions continue to utilize free agency to bolster their teams The Packers' approach to building from within and with the draft means every pick counts.

It's a sad day when a veteran player that defined "Packer People" leaves the team. He's a great player, a team leader, and a guy who simply got better by working harder. We're not going to forget his great career here and how we watched him grow from bench fodder to one of the most dominating defensive ends in the NFL.

But, you get the feeling that without the scheme change, Kampman would have been happy to finish his career here in Green Bay. The Packers did him a service by allowing him to go to a team that will allow him to finish his career in a way that maximizes his contributions. It's just too bad that they dropped the ball and only allowed their team to lose a great player with nothing in return.

NFL Owners and NFLPA Better Think Twice

noreply@blogger.com (C.D. Angeli) — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:31:00 +0000

Enjoy the game today: it may be the last of an era.

I know a lot of folks, friends of mine, who are facing layoffs, cuts to their jobs, or dramatic downsizing of their family budget. These aren't slimy people or ne'er-do-wells, but good people with families to feed. I don't claim a political affiliation other than reality: the economy is wreaking havok on the lives of the common man.

Lori Nickel of JSOnline wrote up a nice summary of the labor issues involving the NFL and its players, as they squabble over figures of money that we last saw being offered as bailouts to banks and lending institutions, who then turned over that money to their CEOs as bonus checks. America got their feathers ruffled over that, and soon, you have to think that the same indignation is going to be directed at millionaire players and their multi-millionaire bosses.

Essentially, it comes down to what everyone else is going through: the NFL is facing losses just like everyone else and looking wherever it can to make up the difference. The documentation of the Green Bay Packers downturn, made public because it is the only publicly-owned team, is just a glimpse into what other teams are facing: Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder are probably weathering the storm, but downtrodden teams from small markets are likely faring worse than the Packers and their eternally-fervent fan base and perpetually sold-out stadium.

But as an agreement over the $8 billion from the television contracts stalls, the resulting chaos will negate all the things that have made the NFL the #1 sport in America. And when the people who make the NFL what it is feel like their product is changing for the worst, they will express their frustration.

And when they are sitting at home on a layoff, struggling to put together enough money for a grocery trip, they aren't going to be much too pleased with the idea that their hard-earned money for tickets, merchandise, and products advertised during games is being haggled over by millionaires who want to squeeze the other party out of just a little bit more.

In an economic crisis like this, the NFL can really drive a wedge between themselves and their fan base, much as baseball did back in 1993 when they canceled the World Series. Many will tell you that there are many fans who still haven't come back since that debacle of greed.

In a nutshell, the two sides need to compromise quickly and get the reports of greed and doom and gloom out of the headlines. This isn't your local factory losing money and going out of business...this is one of the strongest businesses in the nation fighting who gets the billions of dollars they are guaranteed to make even if they lock the players out.

I still claim to be a Bucks and Brewers fan. I watched all three Wisconsin teams fervently as a teenager in the 1980's. But there is a reason my NBA and MLB fandom has waned over the years.

I was probably as big of a Brewer fan as any back in the 80's. I attended Game 3 of the World Series back in 1982. I could tell you every name of every player and their stats. I could predict when Ben Oglivie would foul off eleven pitches, and then pop out to the shortstop. I can still tell you the name of the pitcher who gave up Rickey Henderson's record-setting steal.

But the game changed. As revenues increased, the lack of a salary cap turned the Brewers into nothing more than a quadruple-A farm club for the teams that had deep pockets, resulting in a bitterness and resentment for big-market teams that fielded playoff contenders year after year. The endless mediocrity of the Brewers in the face of big-spenders turned a lot of fans off, especially when young players developed internally would finally blossom, only to jump ship for a fat contract elsewhere.

Add to that the cancellation of a season and the resistance to regulate and enforce steroid use, and it is no wonder why MLB has lost so much of its luster. An unfair balance of power with players whose statistics now coming into question means this sport is not the same as the one I watched back in 1982.

The NBA, unfortunately, is just as bad. The game has evolved into something much different than I used to watch with Sidney Moncrief and Bob Lanier in the 80's, when a semblance of team offenses were run, and defenses were more than just fouling. The games has shifted away from the audience that enjoys the game of basketball featured in "Hoosiers" to the game seen on playgrounds.

But the "luxury cap" and soft cap of the NBA, as well as loose free agency rules, means that players tend to move freely from team to team after only a few years. This has impacted my willingness to follow the Bucks as fervently as I used to, because it seems that every three years or so, the entire roster turns over. I made an effort to start watching the Bucks again when the "Big Three" rose to prominence in 2001, but was turned off by Sam Cassell's repeated drives to the hoop (despite open players calling for the ball), then whining about a foul not being called. And then, within two seasons after that, all "Big Three" players had departed the team.

It is many of these CBA agreements that keeps the NFL in a prominent position: the NFL has boasted a level playing field and allowed teams to keep the faces of the franchise in the fold. The Packers never really contended throughout the 70's and 80's until that hard salary cap was enforced in the early 1990's, and that sharing of revenue (that MLB refuses to adopt) brought the Packers back into glory. Face it: do you think we'd be watching a Super Bowl today with a team from Indiana and a team from Louisiana without that revenue sharing?

It's one thing to alienate your fan base by squabbling over billions of dollar in the middle of a recession. It is another to lock the players out and take games away from the fans over that greed.

But if the NFL goes into the uncapped year, with no ceiling or basement, and starts allowing massive free agent movement to boot? Changing the makeup of the game, forever removing the parity and level playing field?

As in the case of major league baseball, three strikes, and you're out.

But, sadly, we've witnessed it too many time over the last few years: greed rules, and unfortunately, gets rewarded in the end.