From: tkelsey@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (todd.p.kelsey)
Subject: Re: Packers 1992 Summary (long)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 14:42:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.230926.18131@macc.wisc.edu> heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.220225.10246@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, tkelsey@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (todd.p.kelsey) writes...
>
>>Quarterback: A-
>>Brett Favre is a budding star in the league.  He has all the tools
>>(strong arm, mobile, tough, leadership) to be an outstanding quarterback
>>for many years.  The task for Favre and Holmgren is to keep Favre
>>focused on reaching his potential.  Don Majkowski's days in Green Bay
>>appear numbered, since he will be a free agent and the Packers will
>>never want to match his $1.7 million salary of this year.  The Packers
>>will need to pick up a veteran backup quarterback in the off season.
>
>Maybe.  But I'll bet they pick up another rookie and count on Ty 
>Detmer if anything happens to Favre.  Also, while I thing the 
>probability is *extremely* small, Majkowski may be back.  I don't 
>think that under the new agreement (as it's rumored to be) the Packers 
>have to offer him as much as he made this year.  Some other team in 
>desparate need of a QB will probably sign him.  He'd be willing to 
>take a cut in pay for a chance to start somewhere else.  But probably 
>his best chance for a decent end to his career is as a backup in GB.  
>He's going to go somewhere else and do a Jay Schreoder imitation.
>

I heard this morning that Wolf said he doesn't expect Majkowski back.
Majkowski would like a better chance to start than he has in Green
Bay.  I agree he would probably be better off staying as a backup 
with the Pack, but I'm sure it would be a blow to his ego.  I believe
you are right, that the Pack could offer Majik less than his current
salary.  I think this was even true last year, but the player would
then be free to negoiate with other teams.

>>Wide Receivers: B-
>>This breaks down to Sterling Sharpe - A+, everybody else D-.  Sterling
>>was fantastic in 1992.  This offensive is perfect for him.  It's great
>>to know he has that 10 year contract.  The Packers desparately need
>>a receiver to complement (take the heat off) Sharpe.  Ron Lewis showed
>>flashes and may be the guy next year.  Corey Harris was a special teams
>>star.  If he can get to that level as an offensive player he could start.
>>Robert Brooks is young and very inconsistent.  Sanjay Beach is a stiff.
>>The Packers need to draft or sign free agent receivers.
>
>Until relatively recently, it was *very* unusual for a WR to do much 
>in his 1st year.  I you can draw any conclusions about the future 
>Corey Harris or Robert Brooks from their performance this year.
>

I am hoping that one or many of these young receivers produces.  There
is a tendency for receivers to emerge later in there career.  Players
like Sharpe, Rice, and Rison, who produce early are the exception.

>>Offensive Line: B
>>This group performed way beyond expectations this year, but there are
>>some major holes to fill.  For the first time in years the Packers
>>were actually able to run the ball and in most games the quarterback
>>was given adequate time to throw.  The Tootie Robbins trade solidified the 
>>right tackle position.  He had an excellent year.  Ron Hallstrom also had his
>>best season in years.  What happened to the Hallstrom who seemingly had
>>2 holding penalties per game in 1991?  Both these players are near the
>>end of their careers, though.  Ken Ruetggers had a fine season, as well,
>>but I expect him to leave Green Bay as a free agent.  Campen is solid,
>>but unspectacular (I've heard rumors that he will be leaving Green Bay
>>as well).  Winters and Sims filled in admirably when called on.
>
>I don't know, I guess you gotta give them a B.  But that seems a 
>little high considering the Packers inability to run when necessary.  
>Almost all the Packers rushing yardage was made off trap blocks and 
>sweeps.  When they were 3rd and 1 they were in trouble because they 
>had no drive blocking - no power.  When they had big leads to protect 
>and they needed to run out the clock they were in trouble for the same 
>reason.

They were much improved at running short yardage this year, still they're
at best an average running team.  Maybe I was grading them on a curve based 
off last year :-).

>
>>Defensive Line: C-
>>This group has some major holes that were obvious in the Viking game.
>>They get almost no pass rush from the line and they are also ineffective
>>at stopping the run.  Nearly to a man the Packers DL are all stopgap at
>>best.  Matt Brock may be the only one who deserves to start.  This
>>would be an ideal position for the Packers to try to lure a big name
>>free agent.  They also need to draft at this position.  Either way,
>>the DL needs help if the Packers defense is to improve.
>
>I don't know, C- seems a little high for this group too.  I'd say D 
>for all the same reasons that you gave.

I was in the Christmas spirit when I gave out this grade :-). I
have no argument with a D.  This group is poor and needs a lot of
help.

>>Secondary: B-
>>Loads of talent that improved immensely during the season.  This could
>>be a team strength for years to come.  Chuck Cecil had an excellent
>>year (although I'm suprised that he will be starting in the pro bowl).
>>As the season progressed he developed a "nose" for the football and
>>would look for the interception.  His hitting intimidated several
>>opposing receivers and resulted in a lot of dropped passes.  It's
>>hard not to like a player who has blood running down his face in 
>>nearly every game.  Cecil will be a free agent.  Signing him must
>>be a priority.  LeRoy Butler looks like he will be an outstanding
>>strong safety.  His hitting improved alot this year and he's always
>>been a good cover man.  Terrell Buckley has loads of talent, but
>>needs to learn to keep his head in the game.  He gets "burned" more
>>than he should (but most rookie cornerbacks do).  He also needs to 
>>work on his tackling.  Considering he missed all of training camp,
>>I thought he had a good year (3 ints, 2 TDs).  Packer fans need to
>>remember he is only 21 and a rookie.  Vinnie Clark is an enigma.  He
>>has ideal size, great speed, yet continually gets burned.  If he
>>doesn't improve in training camp, he may be gone.  Roland Mitchell
>>had a fine year.  More depth is needed in the secondary.
>
>I still think Clark is going to be really good.  He always seems to be 
>in position but doesn't make the plays.  In fact, he looks like a 
>rookie.  I think that his limited playing time last year, moving from 
>RCB to LCB, adjusting to the new defense has set him back a year.  
>Maybe with another training camp he can make it.
>

I hope you're right concerning Clark, but I'm beginning to have my
doubts.  Next year it's time he started to show why he was a first
round draft pick.

>>Front Office: A
>>Bob Harlan finally did what all good team presidents (owners) should
>>do.  Pick a good football man, give him absolute power, and get out
>>of the way.  Ron Wolf was the man he picked and this looks like a
>>great choice.  Here's a summary of Wolf's accomplishments in his
>>first year (complete with my original opinion of the move):
>> 
>>1.) Essentially traded a 2nd round pick for a head coach
>>	with no previous coaching experience.  I thought this was
>>	ludicrous and wanted him to hire Parcells.  Holmgren
>>	has already proven himself to be worth more victories than
>>	any single player could have been.
>
>I think Wolf would have hired Parcells if Parcells had been willing.  
>Remember he wanted complete control.  Rumor has it that after he was 
>snubbed by TB, Parcells asked again about the GB job.  By then 
>Holmgren had already been hired.

That's not entirely clear, since both Parcells and Wolf have maintained
the job was never offered.  It was also clear from the beginning that
Wolf had a very high opinion of Holmgren (he more or less quit 
interviewing after he talked to Holmgren).  Holmgren may have been
his first choice all along.  I think Wolf and Parcells will be the
only ones who'll ever know for sure.

>5.) Drafted a bunch of other people who haven't done much of anything. 
>
>Unless we see some major improvement from Brooks, McNabb, and 
>Bennett or if Chumura, D'Onofrio, and Orlando McKay come of IR 
>and this draft will have to be considered fair to middlin' even 
>if Buckey lives up to the potential he seems to have.  If you want to 
>consider Favre as part of the draft, as Ron Wolf does, I guess you can 
>say it's an okay draft.
>

It's too early to draw much of a conclusion on this draft.  The
fact that 9 players from the draft are still on the team give it
the potential to still be a great draft, although several of those
players must step up their play significantly.  By the same token,
if these players you mention don't improve the 1992 draft will 
compare with many of Tom Braatz's.  It will be at least 2 more
years before one can gauge this draft.

>>1992 turned out to be a pleasant suprise for this Packer fan who
>>came into the year with very low expectations.  It's entirely
>>possible that the Pack may not duplicate this season's success
>>next year, but with a good draft and a few key free agent moves
>>I expect them to challenge for a playoff spot.
>>Either way, the foundation appears to be there for the Packers
>>to be an NFL power by the mid 1990's.
>
>I'm cautiously optimistic.  It may not be a good idea to draw any 
>conclusions from one good year though.
>

I agree.  I have this fear that 1993 may be a repeat of 1990, 
although one can see a more solid foundation for future success
this time around.  A couple of key points comparing 1992 to 1989:
	1.) Better GM/front office.
	2.) More balanced, ball control offense.
	3.) Victories over "good" opponents.
	4.) Solid victories.  Much fewer late game heroics.

At the very least there is good reason for optimism this year.  I
couldn't say the same at this time last year.

-Todd
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro