Oh, That Crazy Chris Havel....

I am a person who doesn't like to accuse other of being "on Kool-Aid", or taking some sort of foreign substance that would make them susceptible to crazy talk, loony ideas, flashbacks to the 70’s and 80’s, or dreaming of Gilbert Brown in a cheerleading outfit.

However, Chris Havel approached levels of such impossible optimistic thinking today that even Pollyanna herself checked into Bellin Psychiatric for a two-week stint treating her depression.

In his article printed in the Green Bay Press-Gazette on Wednesday, January 11, Havel outlined his “plan” for future success under Thompson, which most seem to center around somehow convincing Brett Favre to resume taking snaps under center in 2006.

Now, in the last couple of months, Chris Havel has taken the approach that not only was Mike Sherman responsible for the decline of Brett Favre, but the decline of play on the field, the decline of personnel integrity, and the decline of the Roman Empire. Havel took an extraordinarily hard line against Sherman, seemingly burning every bridge he might have with the former head coach, had he been retained.

However, after Sherman was relieved of his coaching duties on Monday, Havel and many of the others who were burning effigies of the former head coach spent several days in self-congratulation. However, others questioned the move, and whether or not such a firing was in the best interest of the franchise, or at least, if Thompson had enough of a sense of direction to point the team in a different one.

Once he completed helping with the bronzing of a new statue of Thompson, to be placed between the statues of Vince and Curly in front of the Atrium (it took a while, as there was much consternation as to which of Thompson’s facial expressions to use: unaffected, cryptic, or enigmatic), Havel and many others who now celebrated Sherman’s firing now took aim at what they called the “doom and gloomers” of Packerdom, ridiculing them for being so judgmental of such a wonderful man who fired the man with the black moustache.

As we sit and wait for the puffs of white smoke to emerge from the Packer Vatican, letting us know which of the qualified, yet unproven, candidates will be taking the whistle on the sideline in 2006, Havel gave us his reasons as to why we should not be so negative. According to him, it is as easy as A, B, C…

A. We must convince a future Hall-of-Famer (and recently, Target-of-Blamers) that the $12 million he would be owed for the 2006 season is too much for his services, and that he would be happier with his salary being “downsized” because of the other changes he proposes Thompson will make.

B. Hire Jim Bates as Thompson’s “new direction” he gave as the only reason for firing Sherman, both to the fans, the media, and Sherman himself. This would be interesting, as Bates was not only 4-7 in Miami, but was a Sherman hire himself.

C. Promote one of Bates’ defensive assistants to defensive coordinator. To my knowledge, the defensive assistants, other than perhaps Bob Sanders, have come under enough criticism over past several seasons to make this a questionable move, also: Baker, Duffner, Jackson, Nunn, and Washington? Doesn’t this smack of cronyism? Wasn’t that one reason Sherman was let go?

D. Somehow convince Steve Mariucci, who is making more money to not work than Mike Sherman, that he would like to come back and work under Jim Bates as offensive coordinator, because Favre would be more comfortable with that. If not Mariucci, another recently fired head coach, Norv Turner, and buddy of Thompson, will also be willing to take a demotion with the Packers.

E. Promise Favre that, despite Thompson’s constant assertations (and one-year track record: Klemm and O'Dwyer, anyone?) that he will make a splash with at least two prime free agents, including guard.

F. Sign Terrell Owens. Yes, you read that correctly, sign Terrell Owens, because he will help turn this franchise around. He will (probably) have respect for Favre, therefore, he will (probably) behave himself and (probably) be the threat, not the distraction, he can be.

G. Draft Mario Williams. Doable.

H. Trade Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila for a pick. Also, trade Robert Ferguson for a mid-rounder. Both of these trades are questionable, in that not many folks are going to trade a valuable, first-day pick for an undersized, one-dimensional pass rusher who will also bring a $4 million dollar cap hit. As well, we will suffer a $5 million dollar acceleration on our own salary cap.

And, anyone who truly believes that Ferguson will bring anything higher than a seventh rounder is fooling themselves. Would you trade for Ferguson, if he were on another team?

Chris Havel, who at one time was regarded as a journalist with precision-like accuracy, has attempted to spin a positive future with Thompson by switching to buckshot. So, Thompson will be okay if he cuts Favre’s salary in half, convinces head coaches that they should be coordinators, signs the biggest cancer in memory, and gets trade value for the players we no longer want.

I think he forgot step I: sign Shaun Alexander, Brian Urlacher, and Antonio Gates to veteran’s minimum contracts with incentives.

There’s no reason to try and spin Thompson into some sort of genius, able to make these moves. We are in competition with 31 other teams for the same players and coaches, and like it or not, this is a team in flux, not the storied championship team we’ve been able to sell this franchise as for the past 15 years.

Thinking we can perform amazing feats as Havel described, with a second-year executive who has done little to prove his mettle so far, is simply unrealistic, and to me, seems to be a sell job by someone who got his way with Sherman, and suddenly is realizing that he opened himself (and the man who gave him his wish) up to criticism.

This really isn’t that hard. Thompson has one important job right now: hire the best coach for this team. If that person happens to be Bates, so be it, but we need to hire the best coach, not the best person for “continuity” in convincing Favre to stick around. If Thompson is a man of his word, which has yet to be proven, he will be looking in a different direction, a direction that will take us to his ultimate goal.

Once that happens, he will be expected to do everything in his power to build the best team he can. Whether that is for 2006 or for the future remains to be seen, but those choices have completely different paths to greatness. If he wants to win in 2006, it will affect everything from how we draft to how we approach free agency. If he is building on a three-year plan, look for big differences once we get past pick #5 in the draft, and don’t expect any big-name free agents to be wearing green and gold this season.

Thompson is the ultimate poker-face. His expressions and words give us no clue as to what moves he plans to make. Therefore, it is with each move he does make that we will understand if he is truly playing with a full deck.

And if he signs Terrell Owens, my guess would be he’s playing with jokers.

Thompson: Look For The Best Coach, Not The Anti-Sherman

increasing sense of micromanaging will generally put your job in jeopardy. It is questionable as to whether or not GM Ted Thompson was being genuine in his efforts to give Sherman a fair chance, or to field a winning team, but as a result, the crosshairs will now shift to the man who will be the most tenured man-in-charge within one year: a new head coach combined with a new team president means Ted Thompson will bear the brunt of any future failings.

Some coaches have been mentioned, and perhaps, Thompson only threw away four cards, keeping his ace in the hole, defensive coordinator Jim Bates, who revitalized the defense with fundamentals and emotion this past season. Fan response (and even Thompson) has indicated that the "anti-Sherman" traits are desired for our new head coach: a fiery, emotional coach with that extra spark. Bates would fit the bill, but with Thompson's constant assertation that it is time to "go in a new direction", it seems unusual that he would then award the head coaching job in-house.

Thompson, to his credit, has asserted repeatedly that he is going into this process with an open mind, and without any pre-concieved notions as to who he wants or any specific traits he wants in a new head coach, other than having "that extra spark". This means, also, that we're hopeful he's a good judge of talent, both of players and of the man he chooses to lead them. Ron Wolf and Bob Harlan have become villified lately for their role in promoting Mike Sherman to the dual role of head coach and general manager in 2001, a move that some interpret as accelerating Sherman's love for control, like giving a free bar to an alcoholic. Thompson now must take accountability, one of his favorite words, for choosing the man and players that will replace the man who brought us three division championships.

My biggest fear, however, is trying to find the anti-Sherman, as it has been decided the cerebral, planned, charts-and-graphs approach to coaching is what needs changing. However, we've been down this road before. When Ray Rhodes was relinquished of his coaching duties after an 8-8 season, Bob Harlan and Ron Wolf gave in to looking for the "Anti-Rhodes"...someone to counter the laid-back lackof planning and discipline that Ray became notorious for.

Who did we get as the "Anti-Rhodes"? Mike Sherman.

Perhaps one of Sherman's greatest faults was surrounding himself with folks he knew would agree with him, particularly at the coordinator positions. Ed Donatell, Bob Slowik, and Tom Rossley all seemed to be cogs in the machine, extensions of Sherman's managing style, yes-men who followed his style of sticking to the game plan, regardless of circumstances; of side-stepping widely around Brett Favre, when he desperately needed little more than some frank guidance and direction; and allowing Sherman to run the show, right or wrong.

The best late move Sherman made was hiring Jim Bates as his defensive coordinator, a man very different from himself. One can just picture meetings of the top brass, in which Sherman was used to being the only voice heard, now to hear a gruff voice giving his opinions too. But the contrast provided balance to the defense this season, something desperately needed. The intellectual, organized practice-it-like-its-written-down mantra of the head coach now had its counter: a fiery, emotional, practice-it-like-you-play-it leadership in its defensive coordinator.

Two pair.

What if Tom Rossley was let go, and a similar personality to Bates was brought in to run the offense emphasizing accountability, execution, flexibility, and willingness to tell Brett Favre to make the safe read, not the big play?

Full House? Could be. We'll never know.

But that idea of balance is what should be looked at today. In the 1990's, Mike Holmgren had that balance in his staffing. He, the head coach, was the ego, the id of the team. Fritz Shurmur was the heart, the spirit of the team. Sherm Lewis the intellecutal x's and o's guy. That balance proved to be worthy of winning a Super Bowl.

If Jim Bates is made head coach, he will want structured, accountable guys at his coordinators, taking on the needs of players that his emotional rah-rah side doesn't reach. It's like any relationship: opposites attract because all seek balance. When the weights are tipped too much to one side, as it was during the past several seasons under Sherman's tenure, you can't make the equations balance every time.

In whomever we look to lead this team, though, it is important that Ted Thompson realizes this is now his most critical decision he will make in his career. Ron Wolf made two very risky moves his first year as general manager in 1992: no, not firing Lindy Infante, but trading a first-round pick for a third-string quarterback, and sending a second-round pick for an offensive coordinator a team didn't want to lose. Had either of those moves not paid off, Wolf would never have achieved the cult status he enjoyed.

Thompson now has his Favre/Holmgren to find, or risk finding his first decision, firing Sherman, to be the biggest mistake.

Hopefully, he tries to find the best balance of coaches to run this team, because the "anti-Sherman" isn't going to be any more successful than Sherman was as the "anti-Rhodes".

End Of The Season and Sherman's Future

I’m very excited for Sunday. For two reasons.

One is a good reason: I am going to my first (and only) Packer game of the 2005 season, to see the final game against the Seahawks. I don’t get to many games in a season, so when I walk around the Atrium and the concourse, I really do cherish the time.

The other reason, however, is probably less exciting than it is a sense of foreboding, because I’m waiting for a press conference from Ted Thompson that may come as early as Sunday night, making an announcement that will set the Packers’ future in motion.

That decision, of course, will start with Mike Sherman’s job, which one has the feeling has had a decision made on it already, win or lose against Seattle. I’m sure a crushing loss against Mike Holmgren’s backups at home could speed up that announcement, though.

I have a strong feeling we are looking at Mike Sherman’s last couple of days as Packer head coach. Some will celebrate, some will wail. Some will quickly change their “Bad News” to “Good News” and pop open some champagne. Some will wave goodbye to a Packer era, and look forward to whatever changes are coming on the horizon, with foreboding or hopefulness.

Chris Havel had a scathing article about Mike Sherman in Wednesday’s Green Bay Press-Gazette, calling for Sherman to be fired by Ted Thompson. This was surprising and very bold by Havel, a reporter I’ve followed very closely since he first began writing for the Packers.

You can read his article and get all of his opinions about Sherman, but the fact he’s written the article at all gives us some interesting conclusions that we can jump to, none of which seem too improbable.

First of all, it is very rare, especially in a small market like Green Bay, for the local writer to call for the head coach’s dismissal in such a grandiose way. While I would expect this from the Milwaukee Sentinel-Journal writers, the usual Pollyanna editorials of the Press-Gazette normally wouldn’t tread into this territory.

So, why would Havel break the ice? Using a little deduction, one can definitely assume that, if Mike Sherman is definitely staying on as head coach, or even has a solid chance at staying, a primary local reporter would never burn his bridges with the head coach for the next season (and possibly beyond). Havel is either very brave, very foolish, or knows something we don’t.

Havel is fairly outspoken, but tends to thrive in finding ways to cleverly craft words together to put people in a light he chooses (usually negative), not blatantly rip someone else’s livelihood. This is abnormal for Havel.

Havel is also fairly well respected not only in the community, but by the team. He’s a bit negative, and definitely chums with Favre, but no fool.

That leaves one option, which is he knows something we don’t. I don’t think Havel would make these statements without knowing he has a new coach to appeal to next season.

To me, this means one thing: Sherman is a goner, and Havel knows it. This isn’t just an opinion piece. It’s a eulogy.

If you’ve also listened to Havel on his radio show, you’ve heard that he’s been very less than appreciative of Sherman’s coaching style as of late, and been quite vocal in his disgust with him. What makes a man so angry? Losing? No, Havel has covered losing teams before, and never been this focused.

If you want to make a man mad, hit him where it hurts. Where does Havel hurt? Easy. Brett Favre.

Chris Havel has written two books with Brett, and has openly admitted it’s foolish for him to bite the hand that feeds him. If there is any such thing as a “Favre Acolyte”, Chris Havel would be the presiding cardinal of the church.

Some of this may simply stem from the fact that Favre has had such a terrible season, throwing 28 interceptions and looking to add to that total on Sunday. Havel may see the same things many of us have seen: a coach who has not only mishandled the needs Favre has as a player, but an increasing amount of reliance on Favre to pull games out single-handedly, and allowed him to take the lion’s share of blame when he can’t do it.

Sherman doesn’t hold Favre accountable for his mistakes on the field, and keeps allowing him to make the throws that hurt the team, without making it clear that he needs to adjust. Sherman and his staff are a bit intimidated of Brett Favre, and Favre doesn’t thrive under those circumstances. He needs a father figure who is going to put him on the wall if he needs it. Mike Holmgren did that. So did his own father, Irv, even when Brett was a professional player.

Using some inference, though, the possibility also exists that Havel’s cash cow has come to an end, and that it is all over but the crying for Brett Favre’s career in Green Bay. That would make a man pretty upset; knowing that book #3 isn’t coming. Havel may also know that Favre will indeed call it quits, whether based on tangible information, or just a feeling after working with him for so long.

That’d make me pretty angry at the person I hold responsible for coaching. And Havel is.

My deductions on Favre’s retirement are more observation and guesswork based on this article.

But, when it comes to Mike Sherman and his future with the Green Bay Packers, I think Havel has sent the public more than just another anti-Sherman rant.

He sent notice that Sunday night will be much more eventful than Sunday afternoon.