We’ve taken a couple of bye weeks from the written version of the mailbag. But with a boring second half unfolding between the Packers and the Falcons, I needed something to keep me awake.
The end result, between last night and this morning? You’ve got something that may put you to sleep.
We received more mailbag questions than ever this week. Here are the best 12. (Or the 12 for which we had the easiest answers.)With Stephen Ross’ off-the-wall comments and bungling of the Harbaugh situation, how afraid should Dolphin fans be about the long-term health of the franchise? – Wes, Orlando.
In a word? Very.
The NFL was built by owners who bought football teams because they knew the sport and loved it. Once the NFL became a billion-dollar business, men who made millions in other industries bought football teams because it’s a darn good investment. And because it’s an instant way to gain a high amount of notoriety. (Some compare the phenomenon to rich people getting involved in politics, also known in some circles as “Hollywood for ugly people.”)
Some owners who got involved with money earned elsewhere (like Robert Kraft of the Patriots and Steve Bisciotti of the Ranves) know what they don’t know -- and they know to stay out of the way when it comes to the football operations. Other owners (like Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder and, now, Stephen Ross) can’t resist the temptation to grab a spoon and stick it in the soup.
Far more troubling than the Harbaugh-fueled humiliation of coach Tony Sparano was the recent effort by Ross to articulate in a radio interview the kind of offense he wants the team to run. If Ross plans to provide public and/or private input to the folks he has hired to handle the football operations, the folks who were hired to handle the football operations won’t be hanging around for long. And then Ross will be relegated to hiring people who have no other options, and thus who have not much football talent.
What percentage of General Managers around the league are involved in the decision process of hiring and firing head coaches? – Scott, Arizona.
The degree of influence held by each General Manager varies, but especially when it comes to the firing of a coach. The key factor is the extent to which the G.M.'s contract gives him control over the roster, the draft, and (most importantly) the coach. Some coaches hold all the power, and the G.M. has the title but not the traditional powers. (The best example of this phenomenon is in Philly, where Howie Roseman and Tom Heckert before him are second-fiddle G.M.'s to first-chair head coach Andy Reid.)
In cities where the G.M. occupies a position one rung higher than the head coach, the general thinking is that the General Manager gets to hire two head coaches before the G.M. is on the hot seat. In some cities, the G.M. and the head coach have equal accountability, which goes a long way toward ensuring that the two men will work together, with the kind of trust that allows the head coach not to worry about the things the owner and the G.M. may be discussing in the luxury suite during a game that the team is losing badly.
Currently, many teams hope to create an environment in which the G.M. and the head coach will indeed work together, with a true consensus being reached on all personnel matters, without anyone having to pull rank with “final say.” It’s the best way to ensure true harmony within the football operation, but in an industry filled with strong-willed egomaniacs, it’s not the easiest thing to accomplish.
Are we seeing the beginning of the decline of Peyton Manning and, if so, how should Indianapolis approach his contract situation, both in terms of compensation and length? Should he be made the highest-paid QB in football as has been hinted at earlier? Is there a risk that this could turn into a Derek Jeter-type situation where he is clearly overpaid relative to his potentially declining abilities simply because trading or losing him would be anathema to the fan base? – Nels E.
Peyton Manning declined to talk contract with the Colts during the 2010 bye week because he reportedly wants to maximize his leverage. Given that owner Jim Irsay has been saying for nearly a year that the Colts will give Manning a record-setting contract, his leverage can’t get much higher.
Especially since, as Albert Breer of NFL Network recently has pointed out, the franchise tender for Manning in 2011 will exceed $23 million.
Still, we can’t help but wonder whether the Colts will be squeezed into paying Manning more than anyone else would offer. Though the Colts would be taking a huge risk by letting Manning hit the open market, there’s a chance that he could be re-signed for less once he has a chance to find out how much he could get from someone else.
The Colts (and Manning, for that matter) also need to consider the impact of giving so much money to one man, and thus having less money available for other players.
Then there’s the point that Jason Whitlock of FOXSports.com made so well last week. The myth of Manning as field general and on-field offensive coordinator has left him without a high-end offensive coordinator who has the ability to give Manning true coaching. The Colts seem to be so enthralled with having the one guy who can do so much that they pay so little attention to the big-picture challenges arising from having a player who casts such a long shadow over the rest of the roster and the coaching staff.
None of this will keep the Colts from giving Manning whatever he wants. And none of this will keep Manning from taking it. But he likely won’t be adding any Super Bowl rings to his hand without some getting a hand on the personnel and coaching fronts.
Given the potential lack of free agency, what position players do you see as the most valuable to re-sign before March 4th? – Jeremy W.
Teams need to consider their class of coming free agents in relation to the men who’ll potentially replace them from within the roster, the help they may be able to get in the draft, and the question of whether when -- and if -- free agency will even happen.
The fact that so few teams seem to be interested in signing the men who’ll become free agents whenever the next league year begins should strike fans of some teams as troubling. Every team has the exclusive ability through March 3 to negotiate with the players who’ll otherwise become free agents when the next league year begins. With a potential lockout looming, it’s hard not to wonder whether most teams have opted not to give money in the form of signing bonuses to men whom the league hopes will be inclined to cave at some point between March and October by accepting the league’s last offer on a new labor deal.
If next season is a lockout, what happens to the 2012 draft order? Will Carolina have consecutive 1st picks in the both drafts (2011, 2012)? – Eduardo, Miami.
The draft order for 2012 in the absence of a 2011 season would depend on the agreement (if any) between the NFL and the union. When the NHL owners locked out the players for a full year, the order of the next hockey draft arose from a random draw with weighted measures based on factors such as won-loss record over three seasons and the number of high picks in that same window.
Regardless of how it all shakes out, it’s highly unlikely that the Panthers will use the first pick in consecutive drafts without, you know, earning it.
Originally it seemed that one of the sticking points to reaching an agreement between the players’ union and owners was the owners’ refusal to share their financials with the players’ union. Have the owners since shared that information? If not, why not? Also do you envision a deal being reached without that information? – Tim T.
The owners have not provided the information, and the players’ union has not stopped asking for it. Instead of repeatedly pointing out that the owners have not justified their desire to pull the plug on the current labor deal by opening their books, the union should simply declare that there is no justification; otherwise, the owners would open their books.
The players also should argue that the owners want a new labor deal not because they need one in order to secure the long-term viability of the league, but because they’ve decided to solve their own disagreements (hidden from view, for now) regarding revenue sharing by getting the players to give up part of their piece of the pie.
Either way, the players probably should quit asking for the financial information and shift to a new strategy. The owners won’t be giving it up, and the fans don’t seem to be getting too worked up about it.
If the union votes to decertify in order to avoid the lockout, won’t that mean that teams are free to cut individual deals with players since, from a legal standpoint, there’s no entity to collectively bargain with? – Chuck H.
If the union decertifies, players under contract for 2011 and beyond remain obligated to their current teams. Players whose contracts have expired will be fair game to go elsewhere, subject to whatever rules the league imposes for free agency in the absence of a union.
Those rules likely will result in an antitrust lawsuit, with the players (as coached by the union) arguing that 32 separate businesses can’t impose rules that applies to all of them.
Until that lawsuit is resolved, the rules imposed by the league will control free agency and player movement.
The decision to change the overtime rules just for the postseason is beyond stupid. Is this a new rule going forward, just for this year’s playoffs, or for all playoffs going forward? – Len B
The rule currently is in place for the playoffs only. Because it wasn’t passed on a trial basis, 24 of 32 teams would have to vote in favor of removing it. Until then, it remains part of the playoff puzzle.
It remains to be seen whether the rule is applied to the regular season. One concern arises from the possible extension of the duration of regular-season games.
Still, the sense fairness that has eliminated the ability of a team to receive the opening kickoff in overtime and win the game with a walk-off field goal exists with equal force in the regular season as in the postseason. At some point, the league needs to address that discrepancy. Plenty of regular-season games have playoff implications; why should different rules apply?
Should Arizona consider trading Larry Fitzgerald? – Gordon.
Yes.
He’s under contract through 2011, and the Cardinals can’t use the franchise tag to keep him in 2012.
Moreover, the Cards don’t have a quarterback who can get the most out of Fitzgerald’s talents. It would make sense to get some value for Fitzgerald now, instead of none later.
Three-quarters of the way through the season, many experts were projecting as many as 10 head-coaching changes. It seems that the NFL will end up far short of that. Is it strictly due to the potential of a pending lockout with the CBA? – Brian K.
The fact that there were fewer vacancies than expected didn’t happen only because of the labor situation, but the potential lockout is a factor.
This year, with the possibility of no offseason program or minicamps or training camp or preseason, continuity will be critical. The chance, slim as it may be, of a new coach meeting his new team for the first time after the players cave in September following the loss of a couple of game checks would put teams with new coaches way behind when it comes to getting ready for the season.
If the Seahawks win again this weekend, is this a nightmare or dream situation for the NFL? – Chris, Las Vegas.
Both. It would set up a compelling game in Seattle for the NFC title, with the Seahawks having a solid chance of holding serve thanks to the home-field advantage. But if the Seahawks win, it would knock out of the Super Bowl a Packers team with a strong national following, and it would serve up the 10-9 Seahawks as the sacrificial lambs for the AFC champs.
Does Jim Fassel need to find naked pictures of a G.M. to get an NFL job? – Mike B.
At this point, I’m not sure that even compromising photos would help. Fired by the Giants seven years ago, Fassel never has gotten a serious sniff, even though he remains very plugged in to the NFL grapevine.
If he didn’t get even an interview this year, with the Broncos forced to aim low due to the presence of John Elway as the big cheese in Denver and the Panthers wanting to go cheap, Fassel may never get another shot.
But, hey, at least he has the UFL. For now.