Here's the semi-official PFT list of teams who have stated unequivocally that they have no interest in Falcons quarterback Mike Vick.  Please let us know if/when more teams make their positions known.

Atlanta Falcons.  (We know it kind of goes without saying.)

Tampa Bay Buccaneers.  (The Bucs have been silent since Vick was reinstated; they previously have said they aren't interested.)

Detroit Lions.  (Pre-reinstatement.)

New York Jets.  (Pre-reinstatement and last week.)

New York Giants.  (Recently.)

AFC

Baltimore Ravens: July 27 (rookies), July 29 (veterans).

Buffalo Bills: July 25 (rookies and veterans).

Cincinnati Bengals: July 30 (rookies and veterans).

Cleveland Browns: July 24 (rookies), July 31 (veterans).

Denver Broncos: July 30 (rookies and veterans).

Houston Texans: July 26 (rookies), July 31 (veterans).

Indianapolis Colts: August 2 (rookies and veterans).

Jacksonville Jaguars: August 2 (rookies and veterans).

Kansas City Chiefs: July 31 (rookies and veterans).

Miami Dolphins: August 1 (rookies and veterans).

New England Patriots: July 26 (rookies), July 29 (veterans).

New York Jets: July 27 (rookies), July 30 (veterans).

Oakland: July 29 (rookies and veterans).

Pittsburgh Steelers: July 31 (rookies and veterans).

San Diego Chargers: July 26 (rookies), July 31 (veterans).

Tennessee Titans: July 30 (rookies and veterans).

NFC

Arizona Cardinals: July 29 (rookies and veterans).

Atlanta Falcons: July 31 (rookies and veterans).

Carolina Panthers: August 2 (rookies and veterans).

Chicago Bears: July 31 (rookies and veterans).

Dallas Cowboys: July 29 (rookies and veterans).

Detroit Lions: July 31 (rookies and veterans).

Green Bay Packers: July 31 (rookies and veterans).

Minnesota Vikings: July 30 (rookies and veterans).

New Orleans Saints: July 30 (rookies and veterans).

New York Giants: August 3 (rookies and veterans).

Philadelphia Eagles: July 26 (rookies), July 29 (veterans).

St. Louis Rams: July 30 (rookies), July 31 (veterans).

San Francisco 49ers: July 28 (rookies), July 30 (veterans).

Seattle Seahawks: July 30 (rookies), July 31 (veterans).

Tampa Bay Buccaneers: July 31 (rookies and veterans).

Washington Redskins: July 29 (rookies and veterans).

Last June, I looked at whether the NFL's revamped Personal Conduct Policy was working.

At the time, it wasn't.

This June, I've taken another look at it.

At the present time, it seems to be.

For more, check out our latest item for SportingNews.com.

For our Monday offering at SportingNews.com, we take a look at ten things that might happen once the Vikings inevitably pull a drape off their new quarterback, Brett Favre.

The ten possibilities are right here.

And we tried to be a little more insightful than the basic "Vikings will be good" or "Vikings will suck."  For a change.

[Editor's note:  David Cornwell, counsel for Browns receiver Donte' Stallworth, submitted this item to us on Friday, and he asked us to post it in its entirety.]

On March 14, 2009, shortly after 2:00 a.m., I answered my cell phone in Hawaii and heard the following:  "DC, this is bad.  I hit a man."

With this simple declaration, Donte' Stallworth described a tragedy and took personal responsibility for it.  Over the next three months, Donte' and his mother, Donna, guided this process with a simple yet profound directive:  "I am responsible.  Do the right thing."

I am baffled by the outcry and criticism of Donte's punishment.  In tragic circumstances such as these, our civil and criminal laws are designed to determine who is responsible and hold that person accountable.  By immediately accepting his responsibility and agreeing to be held accountable, Donte' spared the Reyes family the pain of reliving a tragedy and spared the State of Florida the expense and risks of attempting to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in what would have been a highly publicized and hotly contested trial.

Everyone who was involved in this process approved of the result:  law enforcement, Florida State Court Judge Dennis Murphy, State Attorney, Katherine Rundle, the Miami/Dade County chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and, most importantly, Mr. Reyes' family.  Ms. Rundle stated that: "the unique facts involved with this charge, Mr. Stallworth's excellent pre-incident history of community service, abundant references that attest to his good character, his lack of any traffic violations or criminal convictions, his full and complete post-incident cooperation with law enforcement, and his willingness to accept complete responsibility for his actions" confirmed that "a just resolution of this case has been reached."  This is precisely how the criminal justice system in this country is supposed to work.

We have been asked to justify Donte's sentence by comparing it to Michael Vick's sentence.  We cannot do so any better than we can explain the difference between an apple and an orange.  Sometimes a difference is so obvious that describing it is illusive.

Under our system of justice, every case stands on its own merits and the facts drive the results.  A major factor in this resolution was the Reyes family's desire not to relive this tragedy through a trial, so we will not try this case in the media.  However, it must be noted that given "the unique facts involved," causation was in dispute and would have been the central focus of Donte's defense.

Critics of Donte' punishment are essentially accusing the judge and the prosecutor of complicity in a scheme that defies description.  Had we forced a trial and won an acquittal based on "the unique facts involved," Donte' would have been exonerated, Mr. Reyes' daughter would have been psychologically scared, and our critics would have gotten their train wreck.  The public has every right to express its opinion, but judicial
determinations are based on facts and evidence.

Any assertion that financial considerations drove the result is offensive, tramples on Mr. Reyes' memory, and is a vicious accusation about his family.  Donte' accepted his responsibility minutes after the tragedy and accepted his civil responsibility to Mr. Reyes' family.  There was no reason to delay resolution of the civil issues with the family.

Donte' is a good person who did a bad thing.  The authenticity of Donte's remorse and good character is revealed in the consistency of his conduct throughout this tragic ordeal.  From his pained acknowledgment "DC . . . I hit a man" to his statement in open court "I
offer my plea and I accept my responsibility for this tragedy," Donte' Stallworth has consistently accepted personal responsibility for his conduct and the pain that he caused.

"I am responsible.  Do the right thing."

What more could we ask?

[Editor's note: The full text of a statement released by attorney David Cornwell on behalf of Browns receiver Donte' Stallworth appears below.]

Commissioner Goodell’s interim decision to suspend Donte’ Stallworth pending the Commissioner’s review of the facts and circumstances in the criminal matter is the first step in the NFL disciplinary process.

After reviewing the facts, Miami law enforcement personnel, Florida State Court Judge Dennis Murphy, Florida State Attorney, Katherine Rundle, the Miami/Dade County chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and, most importantly, Mr. Reyes’ family concluded that the criminal process ended appropriately.

State Attorney Rundle stated that given “the unique facts involved … Mr. Stallworth’s excellent pre-incident history of community service, abundant references that attest to his good character, his lack of any traffic violations or criminal convictions, his full and complete post-incident cooperation with law enforcement, and his willingness to accept complete responsibility for his actions, . . . a just resolution of this case has been reached.”

Commissioner Goodell has reserved a final decision. When he has the opportunity to review the “unique facts involved,” including, specifically, the issue of causation as well as Donte’s character and the manner in which Donte’ accepted responsibility in the criminal and civil proceedings, we fully anticipate that the factors that supported the “just resolution” of the criminal matter will be equally persuasive with Commissioner Goodell.

Consistent with the wishes of Mr. Reyes’ family not to relive a tragedy through the public scrutiny of criminal and civil trials, we look forward to addressing these matters privately with Commissioner Goodell.

Several of you have asked whether our NBC deal will bring to an end our affiliation with SportingNews.com.

Frankly, at this point we don't know.

We'll continue at least until September 1, and we hope to work out a relationship that harmonizes with our partnership with NBC.

Until furher notice, it'll be multiple columns per week.  And our latest effort looks at ten rookies to watch during 2009 training camp.

Here it is.

We've managed to take yet another idea and stretch it into multiple columns for SportingNews.com.

This time, it's the "All-Notorious" team, previously known as the "All-Turd" team.

Previously posted, the offense.

Freshly prepared, the defense.

As we continue to tiptoe tentatively toward the mainstream, we've tweaked the title of our prior annual list of players who have gotten themselves in the newspaper for reasons other than scoring touchdowns or making tackles.

Besides, with the flow of football news slowing down a bit, we needed ideas for our weekly columns at SportingNews.com, so we've exported the team previously known as "All-Turd," with a significantly more palatable moniker.

And we've milked it into two parts.  The "All-Notorious" offense was posted Monday.  The "All-Notorious" defense is being compiled tonight.

As more and more NFL players seem to be unhappy with their contracts, and with yours truly scrambling for column ideas during one of the NFL's only true sssslow periods, Barry Reeves of SportingNews.com suggested that I look at players who do, and who don't, deserve new deals.

So I found five who do and five who don't.

Coincidentally, they come in five sets of two, each from the same teams.

The whole thing is right here.

We're in one of the rare slower phases on the NFL calendar, and so my two-per-week column quota at SportingNews.com is being satisfied largely by lists.

Last week, the list reflected the best moves of the offseason.  This week, we look at the worst moves of the offseason.

The full list is right here.

By the way, "SportingNews.com keeping the dumbass from PFT" came in at No. 11.

Our latest item for SportingNews.com looks at ten guys who should give strong consideration to retiring from the NFL now.

For many of them, our request arises from the reality that we're sick of hearing from them.  For others, we think it's simply in their best interests to walk away.

You can read the whole thing right here, and then you can share your thoughts both at SportingNews.com and right here as to whether you agree -- or whether you want to see me retire.

Since Monday wasn't really Monday and since Tuesday is sort of the Monday for this week, our weekly Monday column for SportingNews.com is running on Tuesday, since it's essentially Monday.

This time around, we look at the ten best moves of the 2009 offseason.

You can read it right here.

“This is nothing but a wedge issue,” former NFL running back Robert Smith says of the league’s current quest to cap the contracts paid to the players taken at the top of the draft.  “When the owners say they are paying the rookies too much, they really mean that they're paying everyone too much and they hope that they can divide the players on a topic that seems to make sense, but doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny.”

Closer scrutiny is what we’ll apply to the push for a true top-to-bottom rookie wage scale.  We’ve already made the case for change via seven separate arguments; here, we’ll make seven arguments for keeping the current rookie pay system in place.

Again, changes would be made only at the top of the draft.  Beyond the first seven or eight picks, the owners have no complaints regarding the process for paying rookies.

1.  The League Agreed To The Present System.

As we repeatedly have pointed out regarding disciplinary procedures that make the Commissioner judge, jury, executioner, and appeals court, the system is what the system is because the union agreed to it.

That same argument applies in this context, to the league.

The present system represents the results of collective bargaining.  The league wanted a draft, the league got a draft.  The league wanted a salary cap, the league got a salary cap.  The league wanted a rookie pool, the league got a rookie pool.

“Those teams at the top of the draft even get extra money from the rookie pool to sign those players, so if anything they could change the amount of money allocated from the rookie pool to sign those players so the rookie salaries would level out over the rounds,” Robert Smith told us.  “The bottom line is that rookies get a smaller percentage of overall money than at any other time.  It's the absolute dollars that freak everyone out.”

So if the league doesn’t like the current system of drafting players and paying them within the confines of a salary cap and a rookie pool, the best solution might be the easiest one.

Abolish the draft.

“Teams wouldn’t go for it,” agent Ben Dogra said earlier this month in a phone interview.  “Teams are losing on half of maybe seven to ten players.  They love [the current system] as to the other 248 players.”

Dogra, who has an encyclopedic knowledge of the round and position at which specific players were taken, rattled off various names to support his contention.  “Are they complaining about [Patriots linebacker] Jerod Mayo, [Cardinals receiver] Steve Breaston, [Texans linebacker] DeMeco Ryans, [Panthers center] Michael Griffin?  Trent Edwards will make $574,000 this year as the starting quarterback of the Bills. as a direct result of the current system.”

So, basically, the league wants to change only one small aspect of a system that it doesn't like, while retaining the overwhelming majority that it otherwise loves.

2.  No One Forces The Teams To Sign The Contracts.

When it comes to players who aren’t happy with the out years of deals signed as free agents or via renegotiation of an existing deal, we commonly point out that, absent proof of a gun being held to the players’ heads, any complaints should begin with the person who put pen to paper on the signature line of the contract.

That same argument applies in this context, to the individual teams.

No one compels any team to give a specific contract to any draft pick.  This year, the Lions supposedly had leverage on their side, insisting that the first overall pick agree to a contract before the draft or he wouldn’t be the first overall pick.

And the best the Lions could do under those circumstances was to limit the guaranteed money to a league-record $41.7 million.

“I don’t see the owners forcing anyone to pay that money,” said Jason Rosenhaus, who with his brother, Drew, operates Rosenhaus Sports Representation, which per NFLPA records has 94 active player contracts.

“They can trade out,” Jason Rosenhaus said of the teams with high draft position.  “They can move down.  They can pass the pick.  They don’t have to do it.  They agree to it.  It’s a free-market system.  If they don’t want to buy the product they don’t have to.”

They don't have to, but they continue to do so.

3.  Big Rookie Contracts Don’t Take Money From Veterans.

One of the most popular arguments in favor of a top-to-bottom rookie wage scale flows from the notion that huge contracts paid to unproven rookies limit the money that will be available to veterans.

That’s the “wedge” to which Robert Smith refers.  And it has been successful.  Many players have bemoaned the large contracts given to kids who have never played a down, including NFLPA president Kevin Mawae.

Even some agents have suggested that the system is out of whack.  Alvin Keels recently acknowledged that change is coming. Jason Chayut of Sportstars recently told FOX Business Channel (via SportsBusiness Daily) that a rookie wage scale is “something that will certainly be up for discussion with the next CBA.”

But here’s the reality.  With so many teams spending millions under the salary cap, the contracts given to rookies have no impact on the money available for veterans.

“Rookies don't take money from veterans,” Robert Smith said.  “They take it from other rookies (that's what the rookie pool was designed to do), and with so many teams spending so far under the cap, it's clear that they wouldn't have a problem finding money to pay the veterans more if that's what they really wanted to do.”

4.  Limiting Rookie Contracts Won’t Result In More Money For Veterans.

Apart from the fact that the current rookie pay system doesn’t take money from veterans, the league has not yet proposed an alternative system that would guarantee the diversion of those windfall dollars to prove n players.

“If you want to put a restrictive rookie wage scale for the top ten players of the first round in order to create more money for veterans,” Jason Rosenhaus said, "how is that money going to go into the veterans’ hands?”

In order to get the players to agree to a system that limits the money paid to rookies, the league needs to be ready to show the veterans the specific steps to ensure that this change will directly lead to more money being paid out to the players who have proven that they can perform at the NFL level.

One possibility would be to increase the salary floor, or to include a minimum cash (not cap) component regarding the dollars that must be spent on non-rookies. 

Regardless of the specific form it takes, limiting expenditures on rookies in the hopes of freeing up more money for veterans is meaningless without specific steps to funnel that excess money to the proven players.

5.  Big Rookie Contracts Increase The Market For Veterans.

Apart from the reality that big-money rookie deals don’t take money away from veterans, some of these large contracts actually help veteran players strike better deals of their own.

Put simply, a big contract paid to a rookie draft pick who becomes a quality player puts the player in line for another contract that increases the market for other veteran players at the same position.

“It gives that particular player a great deal of leverage on their second contract,” Jason Rosenhaus said.  “That player is able to land a marquee contract that raises the bar at that position.”

The best example of this dynamic comes from receiver Larry Fitzgerald.  Thanks to escalators in his rookie deal, Fitzgerald was able to squeeze the Cardinals into giving him a four-year, $40 million contract last year.

And so the current high-water mark for a receiver is $10 million per year.  In turn, the lower levels for the position have been pushed higher as well.

“It trickles down to every other good player,” Jason Rosenhaus said.  “The market raises for everybody.”

For example, the A-level wideout had his market go from $9 million per year to $10 million annually, thanks to the Fitzgerald contract.  The B-level player perhaps saw his value move from $7 million to $8 million per year.  And a middle-of-the-pack receiver will go from making $4 million per year to $5 million.

Dogra agrees with this observation.  “To the player in the locker room the current system doesn’t seem fair," Dogra said.  "But players need to realize that these rookie contracts increase the average per year for veteran contracts.”

6.  Teams Have To Make Good Decisions Regarding The Players They Draft.

The complaints regarding the current system arise only with respect to players like Matt Stafford of the Lions who have yet to get a crack at earning their keep and players like Alex Smith of the 49ers (and many others) who have had a chance to justify that huge contract -- and didn’t.

So at what point are the teams responsible for making better decisions regarding the players whom they select at the top of the draft?

Some teams will say that no amount of film study or background checks or underwear olympics will reduce the failure rate of roughly 50 percent.  Others disagree, but they do so quietly, for fear of the teams that can't get it right finally figuring it all out.

Jason Rosenhaus explained what could be the key issue -- character -- in the context of the Colts' epic in-house debate regarding whether to pick Peyton Manning or Ryan Leaf with the first overall choice in the 1998 draft.

“One guy had tremendous character and the other guy lacked it,” Rosenhaus said.  “Are they in it for the money or to be a champion?  Do they love the game?  Do they love their teammates?”

Asked how to make those determinations prospectively, Rosenhaus said, “If I knew the answer to that, I’d be the best G.M. in the NFL.”

Some General Managers and franchises do much better than others in this regard.  And, as noted above, those who "get it" no incentive to share the secret recipe with teams that can’t seem to ever get it right.

Ben Dogra cited the Colts, Chargers, and Steelers are among the best at nailing the top picks.  But, really, every team should be doing well in the early stages of the draft.

“You can’t be missing on first- and second-round picks,” Dogra said.

As Dogra pointed out, not boastfully but matter-of-factly, he and partner Tom Condon have done a good job of late spotting and cultivating the players who ultimately will be deemed worthy of a first-round draft slot.  Many of these players go on to be quality players.

So if the agents can figure it out, why can't the teams?

Like Jason Rosenhaus, Dogra said that the challenge is to gauge a player’s character.  Ultimately, it comes from collecting accurate information from former teammates and coaches regarding whether a player loves the game -- or whether he’s simply in it for that bonus check.

Bottom line?  The teams are charged with the responsibility of spotting players who will become quality contributors at the pro level, and who can be trusted to have the same amount of passion, drive, and dedication once money is no longer an issue.

As mentioned above, this is the system that the NFL has created. T he burden falls on the individual franchises to make good decisions when using those high-end picks.

7.  Agents Aren’t Influencing The Process.

Plenty of people assume that the current system remains in place because a handful of agents (including Ben Dogra and Tom Condon) make a ton of money from the top-ten rookie contracts, and thus are influencing the union to resist change.

It doesn't help the perception in this regard when other agents adopt that argument. Jason Chayut, for example, had this to say about the situation last month on FOX Business Channel:  "Different agents have a lock on some of the higher picks and they wield a lot of clout behind the scenes with the CBA negotiations.  It's in their best interests to keep some of these top picks getting exorbitant amounts of money."

But Robert Smith thinks agents like Chayut are in the minority.  "As far as Condon and other agents' influence on the process, don't you think that the body of agents as a whole representing the veterans (who get around 96 percent of the salaries even though rookies make up 20 to 25 percent of most teams) would be clamoring for change because they have to negotiate with teams on behalf of those veterans?  The reason those agents aren't mad is that what rookies get paid only influences veteran pay in a positive way.  No veteran gets lower pay because a rookie has a big deal, but many re-negotiate better deals after rookies have set a new market."

The better argument might be that that, while Condon likely was in a position to influence former NFLPA Executive Director Gene Upshaw on the issue of rookie wages because Condon represented Upshaw, new Executive Director De Smith isn't represented by Condon -- and wasn't Condon's candidate.  (Trace Armstrong was.)

So it's safe to say that Smith won't be resisting change because Smith wants to throw a bone to Condon or anyone else who represents players.  Smith will be resisting change at a minimum because it's a good bargaining tactic, and possibly because Smith believes what he's saying about the fact that, if it's a problem, it's not a player problem.

Everyone has a list of teams for which quarterback Mike Vick could eventually play.

We've decided to take a stand against this unimaginative approach to NFL analysis.

Right after we offer up a list of potential destinations for Mike Vick.

You can read our list, made exclusively for SportingNews.com, right here.

[Editor's note:  The following statement from Browns receiver Josh Cribbs was sent to us Wednesday night by Cribbs' agents.] 

I humbly and respectfully come to Browns’ fans and the Browns letting all know that I have given my all to this team, on and off the field for 4 complete years selflessly without regard to myself and my own family.  I have sat by while good players came and went, either due to contracts or injury.  I have witnessed a lot of families uprooted from their stable homes and forced to move wherever the money came in from.  I realize that this is not a fair sport for the players, it is a business and we are products.

Contracts are one-sided in favor of the team, yet we as players are told to honor our contracts without the team honoring them.  We are not doctors and lawyers, we don’t get paid for 25 years of work.  If we are lucky, we get 10 years at best to make all the money we can to last the rest of our life.  We sacrifice our bodies and our health to make our owners wealthy.  I am not asking for nothing that I have not already earned and will continue to earn.  This is not personal, but I have to be a man and take care of my family for not just a year or two, but for as long as I am walking this earth.

I have always given the Browns’ team and its fans respect and my loyalty.  I have stepped into many different roles for the betterment of my team and have brought honor to Cleveland, in the way that I play on the field, and serve in the community. 

I have been blessed with this opportunity to be somebody and ask that I be treated and compensated on the level of my peers, fairly, according to my work completed, and on the promise that my future will brightly upheld in a manner gracious of this team and its fans. 

I want nothing more but to wear the Browns’ logo on my chest until my career has come to an end, and I am deeply disappointed that the team I put my hard work, blood, sweat and tears in will just write me off as though I am collateral damage.  I maintain that this is not personal to Coach Mangini, Mr. Kokinis, or
Mr. Lerner, for this is a situation that I could not keep in any longer."