The two mailbags I am covering today, one of Peter King and one of John Clayton, both will make me somewhat question whether human beings actually have working brains or not...mostly it is the John Clayton mailbag that is the culprit. We get our first 2 page mailbag from Peter King this year, which always excites me because I love the bad journalism that is inherent in either the writer or the reader in a mailbag...and the more pages, the better.
In the first 24 hours of our Five For Fighting fundraiser for Army First Sgt. Mike McGuire's 135-member company being deployed to Afghanistan later this year, and for other U.S. troops in the war zones, you've donated $59,744 to the USO for the cause. I asked for $5 per person, but so many of you have done so much more. We've had 2,394 donors (as of 9:30 a.m. today), which translates to $24.96 per donation.
Let's start this day off with a "Full House" moment. I say a lot of not-nice and critical things about Peter King. When it comes to banding his readers and others together to help people or a cause, Peter is usually one of the first people to do this. I was critical of him holding an entire fundraiser for Dr. Z not because I didn't think Dr. Z deserved it, but because I thought there were other people who had strokes in the same situation as Dr. Z who could be helped as well. Just like when I make slightly bitter comments about breast cancer research money, it is not because I don't support breast cancer research, but because there are more cases of prostate cancer than breast cancer every year and breast cancer research gets quite a bit more funding than prostate cancer research.
Peter is doing a good deed by getting this money together for Mike McGuire and his company. While other sportswriters use their forum to campaign for General Manager jobs and encourage their readers to flood the Inbox of a team executive to ensure this happens, Peter King uses his forum to raise money for worthy people and causes. So hats off to him.
Enough rambling. What I am saying is Peter King is a good guy for getting his readers to contribute money to the USO fund and Mike McGuire's company. So good job Peter King, you are a good man, but I am still going to mock some things you write. Like right now...
When I asked NFL scouts and execs about the quarterbacks in this draft, the one word I heard a couple of times about Oklahoma's Sam Bradford was "frail.''
This could be because Bradford has had some injuries in college and he does look a little frail. I wouldn't say Bradford is frail, but any time a quarterback has an injury to his throwing shoulder it causes concerns among NFL scouts.
When we met, I thought I'd be meeting a Matt Ryan clone -- a tall kid who needed to fill out. Bradford doesn't look like he needs to fill out right now.
It sounds like Peter King has a little crush. It's like "The Bachelor" every single year for Peter. There are a ton of white NFL quarterback prospects to peruse through and we just don't know which one will get the rose at the end of the ceremony. By the way, "the rose" is also known in this case as "having Peter King call you after a game repeatedly, talk about you fondly in his MMQB, want to interview you at least twice a year, and perhaps show up outside your window late at night when he is in town."
It's interesting -- Bradford as a college player physically compares to Ryan.
Matt Ryan: 6'4" 213 pounds
Sam Bradford: 6'4" 235 pounds
So yes, I guess they are the same size but Bradford is 22 pounds heavier than Ryan, so it's not like they are clones or anything.
If Bradford checks out physically, which is a very big but (Ryan had no such major shoulder surgery entering his NFL career), I've got to think, like Ryan, that Bradford will be a top-five pick in the draft. St. Louis, picking first, and Washington (fourth) are the best bets to get him.
Here's the weird part about everyone saying Mike Shanahan will take Sam Bradford with the 4th pick...Mike Shanahan has a huge ego and is known for working well with quarterbacks. Don't you know he wants to mold Jason Campbell into a workable NFL quarterback just to show he can do it? I have no doubt he will draft a quarterback at some point, but it wouldn't shock me if it wasn't in the 1st round. I know there isn't a huge sample size to compare it to, but Shanahan had success with Griese and Jake Plummer, both of which were not 1st round draft picks. I just think with Shanahan being a QB guru-type head coach, he may think he can get a guy in the later rounds (2nd/3rd) and develop that guy while Jason Campbell runs out the string as the starting quarterback.
I was curious to measure Ryan, picked third by the Falcons in 2008, against Bradford. Ryan's career completion percentage: .599. Bradford's .676. Ryan's career yards per attempt: 6.92. Bradford's: 9.41. Ryan's career touchdown-to-interception ratio: plus-19. Bradford's: plus-72.
So based on their college career, Sam Bradford is a better pro prospect...by a lot. Of course we need to factor in the players and the system each quarterback played with in college. Since I can't currently think of any offensive players that played with Ryan at Boston College and I just rattled off 6 names in my head of offensive skill players, not including offensive linemen, who played with Bradford at Oklahoma...I will assume the talent around Ryan at Boston College held him back a little and the talent at Oklahoma helped Bradford.
But I'd be surprised if he gets past Washington at four. And I agree with Adam Schefter, who said the other day he expects the Rams to pick him number one overall if they consider Bradford a no-doubt franchise quarterback.
This is a pretty obvious statement. If any team considers Bradford to be a no-doubt franchise quarterback, that team will probably take him. The Lions and Bucs drafted quarterbacks last year so they wouldn't draft Bradford this year, but no teams without a quality quarterback would generally pass on a no-doubt franchise quarterback. Unfortunately, no-doubt franchise quarterbacks really don't exist that often, so there is always some doubt.
I asked Bradford if he thought he'd justify such a high pick.
What kind of stupid-ass question is this? Does Peter King think Sam Bradford is going to say "no" and basically throw millions of dollars out the window? This is why I think Peter's interviewing style is a joke to some people. He asks obvious questions or questions that have obvious answers. He has a pretty "lobbing softballs" style of interviewing.
"Coach Payton, how does it feel to win the Super Bowl?"
"Mike Vick, do you feel like you can come back to the NFL and compete?"
"Sam Bradford, do you think you are worth the risk for an NFL team to take?"
Re the Sean Payton/Jerry Jones/wine spat from yesterday's column:
Sean Payton has been murdered, his house condemned and his family forced into exile in the jungles of Brazil?
Ellenport wrote, "I asked Sean if he had spoken to Jerry since the Dallas dinner on Saturday night. He said yes -- he actually stopped by at the end of the dinner Saturday night to see them.
Jerry Jones announced when he saw Payton that night that until Payton apologizes every important unrestricted free agent or restricted free agent from the Saints would get a massive offer sheet from the Cowboys. The Saints will never be able to match any of these offer sheets...and also he just bought the Saints and Sean Payton is fired.
Here's Sean's reply from the chat:
'I was at the Dallas dinner Saturday -- stopped by at the end of their dinner, and we had some good laughs. Jerry and I chatted, and we had the empty wine bottle right next to us. Jerry was going to bring it back to Dallas with him as a keepsake, but it accidentally broke that night at the restaurant!' "
It "accidentally broke that night at the restaurant?" Did it "accidentally break" when Jerry Jones tried to smash Sean Payton's face in with it? Did it "accidentally break" when Jerry Jones got incredibly angry and threw the bottle into the wall? I think it is hilarious and slightly suspicious the bottle is now broken. How do you break an empty wine bottle that is just sitting on a table at a restaurant? I'm no detective, but these circumstances around this broken wine bottle are suspicious.
Ironic Hockey Note of the Day: Fifty hours after Sidney Crosby shot the puck through the legs of Ryan Miller in the most dramatic hockey moment since 1980, guess who matches up at the Igloo in Pittsburgh?
Martin Brodeur and Sidney Crosby?
Sidney Crosby. Ryan Miller.
I was WAY off. That is ironic. Who would have thought two teams in the NHL would have two players who were in a gold medal game a couple days before on OPPOSITE TEAMS in an NHL hockey game? Has this ever happened before? Like ever?
(Although I'm told Miller may not play and the Sabres may give him time to recover mentally and physically from the grind of the Olympics.)
Ok, so it's really not ironic since the two players aren't going to face each other? Thanks for nothing Peter.
Don't tease me with your ironic hockey thoughts and then let me know the ironic hockey thought may never actually happen. It's just cruel.
From Harvey Greene (media relations director, Miami Dolphins) of Davie, Fla.: "Enjoyed reading your note today about the Canada-USA hockey game. I was in charge of the press box setup for the entire hockey tournament at the Olympics (I just got back from Vancouver a few hours ago), and I can tell you I never saw a sporting event quite like that gold-medal game (or even the Canada-USA and Canada-Russia games that preceded it). The entire country, from Vancouver to Halifax, was on pins and needles the entire game and when Crosby scored, I'm sure the explosion of sound in Canada Hockey Place was duplicated in every city and hamlet across the country.
"There just isn't anything like that comparable in the States. We don't have a 'national' team in any sport that the entire country truly cares about.
Umm...the Yankees and the Red Sox?
ESPN just saw this comment and said, "Oh yeah, we will MAKE there be a national team the entire country cares about. We don't care if we have to ram coverage of this event where the new national team of our choosing plays down our viewers throats. Don't tempt us to manipulate the masses to prove a point."
Years from now, people will remember exactly where they were when he scored, which, with rare exceptions, usually only take place when a major tragedy strikes.
Those rare exceptions being mostly people can remember where they exactly where when any of their favorite teams won a title of some sort, which happens every year. So in America where there is no "national" team, there are a bunch of regional teams that can cause the same emotions in fans of that team. Canada's joy was on a larger scale, but on a smaller scale fans of American sports teams feel the same way Canada did pretty much every year.
From Ethan T. of Indianapolis: "I noticed you listed Jimmy Clausen as possibly slipping to the second round. Are teams that concerned about his character that he'd drop that far? I watched him throughout his college career -- he can make all the throws and you can't question his toughness after the beatings he took as a freshman and sophomore. He might be cocky, but what football player isn't to some extent?''
PK: He's likely going to be the second-rated quarterback in the draft, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him in the first round to anyone needing a passer, like Seattle with the 14th pick.
Yes, because after kicking his ass for 3 years while coaching USC and playing Notre Dame, Pete Carroll is going to immediately want Clausen on his team as the starting quarterback.
(I am kidding Notre Dame fans, I know the Trojans didn't kick the Irish's ass this year and Carroll may very well want Clausen. I just thought it was amusing USC beat Notre Dame 3 times when Carroll coached USC and Clausen played for Notre Dame...and then Carroll would draft Clausen.)
Cody Jones of Shreveport, La.: "I'm just tired of the overtime thing. There's no guarantee that both teams get to touch the ball in the previous four quarters, so why change it for overtime? Should we guarantee that both teams get a possession every quarter? No, that's sissy-fied. You don't want to go to overtime? Score more points. You don't want to lose in overtime? Score more points or stop the opposing team. The game is not decided by a coin flip, it's decided by the coaching and the men on the field. Always has been. I don't care about the percentages of win-loss in OT. Both teams already had their chance to touch the ball in four quarters! Politically, I'm Independent, but this sounds like liberal football. Make sure everybody gets a fair chance. Rubbish.''
(Cody Jones then cuts his arm with a knife and bleeds all over his keyboard to prove his toughness, goes outside and arm wrestles a crocodile to the ground with his bare hands, puts a dress on the crocodile and then beats the shit out of the crocodile for being weak, and finally hammers nails into the soles of his feet and starts to run a marathon.)
PK: If you created a system in football in 1974, when kickers made six of 10 field goals and kicked off in OT from the 35-yard line, why does the system have to be the same in 2010, when kickers make eight of 10 field goals and kick off from the 30? Laws are amended all the time in the real world to adjust to the times.
I am just disappointed Peter King didn't come back with his usual, "my goodness you are angry young man" type response.
I am actually shocked the NFL has made an NFL overtime change that seems to make sense and doesn't seem half-assed or incredibly stupid. I am not sure if this is an illusion or actual progress...of course the fact I like the proposed NFL overtime change ensures this overtime idea will never get approved by the NFL owners.
From Shawn of Tempe, Ariz.: "My wife tolerates being a football widow each season. And she tolerates me referring to NFL draft weekend as a national holiday. But taking over the TV on Thursday, canceling Friday night plans, and leaving work early two days in a row is unacceptable to even me. This makes league coverage inaccessible to a huge percentage of loyal fans. Now that the NFL is king how about maintaining a fan-friendly approach instead of creating seat license fees, exorbitant satellite TV pricing, and now inaccessible draft coverage. Can you start a MMQB: CFL column?''
There is a lot of angry readers in Peter's mailbag today, but none are mad at Peter himself. I like it when they are mad and angry at Peter more than when the readers are just generally angry.
The draft was money on Saturday, a national holiday for football fans, and now, even though the league is sure to get better TV ratings by having the draft spread over three days (two in prime time), there will be something lost with this format. I don't like it at all. I suggest you write to Roger Goodell at the NFL in New York, or Tweet him (@nflcommish) to register your objections, and urge him to change it for 2011.
Or there could be a protest, like a large group of people refuse to watch the draft, which could affect viewership of the draft and would cause ratings to go down, thereby making the NFL change the draft time back to when it was this past year. But that won't happen because people are going to watch the draft anyway and the NFL won't ever change the draft time back to where it was. See, as long as people make time to watch the NFL Draft, the NFL wins on this issue, but if people actually refuse to watch then the NFL will change it back...but no one is going to refuse to watch.
Now let's get to John Clayton's mailbag and his readers who are borderline crazy and very amateur sounding when it comes to asking pertinent NFL questions.
Sometimes, players take gambles that fail. Other times, players take gambles that work.
(The sound of Bengoodfella being bored to death with the thought of reading a John Clayton column.)
As it turns out, Peppers, who wasn't franchised and will leave the Panthers after free agency starts, is in a no-lose situation even if he doesn't get significantly more than what the Panthers were willing to pay him from 2009 through 2012.
Which seems to be a bit up in the air. The Panthers offered between $13-$14 million per year last summer and didn't even bother negotiating with Peppers this year that much, which should tell any potential suitors something about Peppers.
According to sources, six to eight teams are interested in signing Peppers when free agency starts. He needs to get $34 million over the next three years to equal the money the Panthers were willing to pay him, and that, according to sources, seems easy to obtain.
Again, Peppers is a great player but he turned down a reported 4 year $52 deal from the Panthers last summer and a deal the summer before to make him easily the highest paid defensive player in the NFL. I am not sure how Clayton got the $34 million number because I am pretty sure the offer wasn't constructed to give Peppers $18 million his last season and it was a longer deal than 4 years. Whatever, let's move on...
Peppers' departure from Carolina isn't about the money. Even if he signs for the same money as he would have with the Panthers, Peppers wants to take his game to another level.
One way Peppers can take his game to the next level is to TRY HARD EVERY SINGLE GAME! That's a really good way to do it. Look, I like Peppers and I have no sour grapes about this. He could get 24 sacks this upcoming year and it wouldn't shock me because he can do that. Easily. I am not exaggerating. I think Peppers could get 24 sacks if he really wanted to...but he has to want to, which I don't think he does.
I am not the only one who thinks Peppers takes plays off. I can see Peppers having one good year and then going back to his 10 game "try-hard" schedule with 6 games going through the motions and just generally acting like he doesn't give a shit. That's the upside for Peppers, the fact he will get paid by some team. The downside is he is going to go to a team where he doesn't have UNC Tar Heel fans in the crowd to love him unconditionally because he went to their school and he is going to get called out for some stuff he does (or doesn't do) on the field.
Let's get to Clayton's retarded readers:
Q: For years, something has really bothered me about the draft strategies of NFL teams. If a club has a big, glaring weakness on its roster, why doesn't it use multiple draft picks to address it? I think the Rams should draft two or three quarterbacks, the Bills should draft three or four offensive linemen, the Bears should draft two or three safeties, etc. Sure, you're sacrificing depth, but at least you're taking a bold step to solve a major problem. What gives?
Nathan in Coralville, Iowa
What gives is that this is potentially the dumbest idea I have ever heard. It's the same reason when you have a headache you don't take 30 Advils to take a bold step to fix the whole headache problem. This would be a roster overdose. It makes sense to do this if a team is looking to overhaul a position on the team, but it makes no sense in trying to fix a depth chart problem like not having a clear cut #1 quarterback or right tackle. A team has to allocate its draft picks well and this isn't the way to do this.As I say, life is not a fantasy draft. Teams just can't pick and choose how to fill a position and worry about trading the players who don't fit in later.
Fortunately, John Clayton explains fairly well why this wouldn't work.
A: Some teams get into trouble by reaching for players to fill needs. To reach twice might be even more dangerous. It may not be a bad idea if the position is deep enough that when the "need" player is available, he ranks among the best players available to a team. Often, that isn't the case. You've seen in recent drafts that safety has been a position without much depth. Drafting two for need could make a team go 0-for-2. It's rare that a draft is deep enough for a team to take two quarterbacks and hope to be successful.
Q: Would it be logical or even possible for a Michael Bush-for-Michael Vick trade because the Raiders need a quarterback and the Eagles released Brian Westbrook?
I don't think this trade would be logical or even possible. The Eagles don't really seem like a team that would want Michael Bush. That's exactly what JaMarcus Russell needs, Mike Vick to mentor him and push him for the starting spot on the depth chart. I would love to see this happen. Maybe then the Raiders could see how Vick scrambles and try to convince JaMarcus Russell to lose 70 pounds and turn into a scrambling quarterback. I would love to watch Vick and Russell work together.
Also, is there any possibility of Peppers going to the Raiders?
A: It makes sense for the Eagles, but it doesn't make sense for the Raiders... Al Davis likes a vertical stretch offense, and he's banking on JaMarcus Russell working hard this offseason and trying to show he isn't a bust.
Please make this happen Mr. Davis. In fact, I want "Hard Knocks" to focus on the Raiders this year and maybe have Vick take Russell out on the town one night.
Peppers would add more pass rush, which is needed. You get the feeling things won't work out well on offense. If that's the case, why not bid for Peppers on defense?
I am not sure I can buy John Clayton's personnel management style of, "our offense sucks so let's just spend a lot of money on defensive players." He said something similar about Peppers in a question in this mailbag about the Bears. It appears John Clayton thinks if a team stinks on one side of the ball, it makes sense to load up on the other side of the ball and spend money there. Rather than spend a ton of money on Peppers, why not find free agents that can make the offense better for the Raiders? You know, so the offense doesn't stink. It's nice to get a defense that is dominate, but why not work on the weak offense and strengthen the defense with the money that could be spent on one defensive player? This is mostly true if you are the Raiders and have a lot of needs on the roster.
Sign a mid-level free agent or two for defense and give Russell some good offensive skill players to work with in free agency or through trade. $16 million or whatever Peppers wants can go a long way. Or does this make too much sense and that is why Clayton doesn't suggest it?
Q: Being a Giants fan, it's obvious that we have holes on defense. Given our great WR depth, do you think we could trade Mario Manningham to the Dolphins for the No. 12 pick?
We have a new submission for "Fan that overrates his team's players WAY too much." Mario Manningham for the #12 pick in one of the best NFL drafts in a few years? Is this guy high or just stupid? Manningham didn't have a terrible year, last year but he is in no way worth a Top 15 pick in the NFL Draft.
We could even add in Jonathan Goff.
Oh, I didn't know the Giants would add in a guy who has a total.............
We could even add in Jonathan Goff.
Oh, I didn't know the Giants would add in a guy who has a total.............
27 career tackles. Consider this deal done then. A backup wide receiver and a backup linebacker for the #12 pick in the draft. This is they type of deal Bill Parcells would make all the time in the Bizarro NFL.
A: Come on, do you really think Manningham would be valued at the 12th pick in the draft? Clearly, that's overvaluing a receiver who is becoming a backup. At best, he might net a fourth-round choice.
I get the feeling the guy who wrote this question, Leo from New York, doesn't seem well equipped to properly evaluate NFL players or doesn't understand how much value a player may have. Either that, or he REALLY likes Mario Manningham and hopes other NFL teams share his view.
Q: I am a big fan of your work, but I disagree with your belief that the Bills need to draft a quarterback (specifically Jimmy Clausen) this year. You stated the Bills' front office destroyed its O-line, so why would it be wise to put a rookie passer behind one of the worst lines in the league?
Fantastic point. Let's see how John Clayton responds.
A: You're right about the offensive line problems being a factor, but why would the Bills have to start Clausen immediately?
They wouldn't have to, but then the Bills would have passed on selecting an offensive tackle in this fairly good NFL draft and will have to hope they can find an offensive tackle later in the draft, in free agency or in next year's draft. It's fine to sit Clausen with the offensive line still being a huge problem with the Bills, but why not fix the offensive line first? Or you could do both...
They could use Trent Edwards as a bridge to Clausen. I don't think you have to worry about it, because I don't think Clausen will drop that far. If that's the case, the Bills need to draft an offensive tackle.
It's a chicken-or-the-egg argument. Fix the offensive line first or get a good quarterback first. I fall under the "fix the offensive line first" argument. I guess this is why teams have multiple draft picks. They can choose an offensive tackle in the 1st/2nd round or a quarterback in the 1st/2nd round.
Q: What do you think the best-case scenario is for the Eagles this year at quarterback? Do you ride Donovan McNabb out for one more year? As an Eagles fan, I would try to trade him for the most possible value. Kevin Kolb doesn't seem like a good fit as a starter, even though he hasn't had a chance to really prove himself. Vick is a question mark. Is it possible for the Eagles to look at the draft? Maybe someone like Tim Tebow?
Let's see John Clayton sort of answer the question.
A: The best scenario is to keep McNabb and continue to groom Kolb.
Kevin Kolb has been in the NFL for three years now. Why the hell does he still need grooming? Shouldn't he be ready at this point? After three years of being a backup, his rookie contract is going to run out and the Eagles will have groomed him for another team. I am not saying Kolb is ready to start, but I think all the grooming he needs should be done by now. So either he sucks or he just needs to wait his turn...but no more grooming should be necessary.
Vick doesn't have much, if any, trade value, so I think he will get cut.
John Clayton doesn't realize that nowhere in that question was there a mention of Mike Vick getting traded. I am not sure exactly what question he thinks he is answering when he wrote this.
Q: My question relates to the likely cap-free year. All the focus I have seen so far has been on the cap portion. I'm more interested in the floor aspect. I can see many teams that will lower spending greatly in the event of a cap-free year. What are your thoughts in relation to this?
The NFL: Where it feels like the lockout started a year early.
In fact, I predict payrolls in general will drop $20 million to $30 million per team...More than half the unrestricted free-agent deals will be one-year deals for less than $1 million. Owners will be pocketing a lot of money this season.
Then the owners will be asking the players to pay in money to help pay for stadium expenses when many of the stadiums were funded by tax-payer dollars. It sounds like the owners have some credibility problems in my opinion.
So here is my take on the lockout situation. The owners are going to save a shitload of money this year and use that money for their own personal use. They want the players to help pay for stadium expenses for a team they bought and own because they claim they can't afford to pay for some of these stadium expenses. Boo-hoo. The players obviously don't want to do this, so they may need Congress to force the owners to open up the books to see how much money the owners are making. The only thing we know for sure is the owners are going to make a shitload of money this year because they are preparing a confrontation with the player's union where their main claim is they don't make enough money to run their business.
I think I may be on the player's side on this lockout issue.
A: Come on, do you really think Manningham would be valued at the 12th pick in the draft? Clearly, that's overvaluing a receiver who is becoming a backup. At best, he might net a fourth-round choice.
I get the feeling the guy who wrote this question, Leo from New York, doesn't seem well equipped to properly evaluate NFL players or doesn't understand how much value a player may have. Either that, or he REALLY likes Mario Manningham and hopes other NFL teams share his view.
Q: I am a big fan of your work, but I disagree with your belief that the Bills need to draft a quarterback (specifically Jimmy Clausen) this year. You stated the Bills' front office destroyed its O-line, so why would it be wise to put a rookie passer behind one of the worst lines in the league?
Fantastic point. Let's see how John Clayton responds.
A: You're right about the offensive line problems being a factor, but why would the Bills have to start Clausen immediately?
They wouldn't have to, but then the Bills would have passed on selecting an offensive tackle in this fairly good NFL draft and will have to hope they can find an offensive tackle later in the draft, in free agency or in next year's draft. It's fine to sit Clausen with the offensive line still being a huge problem with the Bills, but why not fix the offensive line first? Or you could do both...
They could use Trent Edwards as a bridge to Clausen. I don't think you have to worry about it, because I don't think Clausen will drop that far. If that's the case, the Bills need to draft an offensive tackle.
It's a chicken-or-the-egg argument. Fix the offensive line first or get a good quarterback first. I fall under the "fix the offensive line first" argument. I guess this is why teams have multiple draft picks. They can choose an offensive tackle in the 1st/2nd round or a quarterback in the 1st/2nd round.
Q: What do you think the best-case scenario is for the Eagles this year at quarterback? Do you ride Donovan McNabb out for one more year? As an Eagles fan, I would try to trade him for the most possible value. Kevin Kolb doesn't seem like a good fit as a starter, even though he hasn't had a chance to really prove himself. Vick is a question mark. Is it possible for the Eagles to look at the draft? Maybe someone like Tim Tebow?
Joe in Lindenhurst, N.Y.
I can not wait for Tim Tebow to get drafted by some team, any team, just so fans of every NFL team will quit talking about him as a possibility for their team. It's like a broken record at this point and I want it to stop.Let's see John Clayton sort of answer the question.
A: The best scenario is to keep McNabb and continue to groom Kolb.
Kevin Kolb has been in the NFL for three years now. Why the hell does he still need grooming? Shouldn't he be ready at this point? After three years of being a backup, his rookie contract is going to run out and the Eagles will have groomed him for another team. I am not saying Kolb is ready to start, but I think all the grooming he needs should be done by now. So either he sucks or he just needs to wait his turn...but no more grooming should be necessary.
Vick doesn't have much, if any, trade value, so I think he will get cut.
John Clayton doesn't realize that nowhere in that question was there a mention of Mike Vick getting traded. I am not sure exactly what question he thinks he is answering when he wrote this.
Q: My question relates to the likely cap-free year. All the focus I have seen so far has been on the cap portion. I'm more interested in the floor aspect. I can see many teams that will lower spending greatly in the event of a cap-free year. What are your thoughts in relation to this?
Les in Perth, Australia
A: The salary-cap floor last season was $111 million. I predict you may see more than a dozen teams not spend to that level.The NFL: Where it feels like the lockout started a year early.
In fact, I predict payrolls in general will drop $20 million to $30 million per team...More than half the unrestricted free-agent deals will be one-year deals for less than $1 million. Owners will be pocketing a lot of money this season.
Then the owners will be asking the players to pay in money to help pay for stadium expenses when many of the stadiums were funded by tax-payer dollars. It sounds like the owners have some credibility problems in my opinion.
So here is my take on the lockout situation. The owners are going to save a shitload of money this year and use that money for their own personal use. They want the players to help pay for stadium expenses for a team they bought and own because they claim they can't afford to pay for some of these stadium expenses. Boo-hoo. The players obviously don't want to do this, so they may need Congress to force the owners to open up the books to see how much money the owners are making. The only thing we know for sure is the owners are going to make a shitload of money this year because they are preparing a confrontation with the player's union where their main claim is they don't make enough money to run their business.
I think I may be on the player's side on this lockout issue.
