Ross Tucker

First Impressions

Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:27:00 GMT

Take it all in with a grain of salt

That's my advice as we get closer to the 2013 NFL Draft later this month. I know most of you love it and I'm truly glad that you are so into it because that is good for me and my profession but it really amounts to very little.

I'm talking about the pre and post-draft analysis of NFL prospects. NFL fans get inundated with information on this year's crop of players no matter where you turn whether it is television, radio, magazines, or especially the internet. Heck there are seemingly hundreds of people in the media that make a living solely based upon sizing up and scrutinizing these kids.

That's not me being critical of the people providing the analysis. They all for the most part do a very good job evaluating these players the best they can. So do the teams. Thousands upon thousands of man hours go into preparing for this single event.

And despite all of that time and effort the draft is still an educated guess at best and the reality is you really don't know how your team did for at least four years. Nobody does. And yes, I said four for a very specific reason which we will get to.

Even the first impressions the players make in their first action with their professional team can be misleading. Very much so. Let me give you a textbook example to illustrate my point.

My third year in the NFL the team I was on selected a junior tight end out of Tennessee in the third round who pundits said was talented but raw and should have stayed in school another year. They also signed an undrafted rookie free agent quarterback out of Eastern Illinois after the draft that nobody cared about. I still remember their first minicamp vividly.

The quarterback was undersized and youthful looking, didn't get any repetitions from what I recall, and wasn't even a blip on the radar screen for me or any of the other veterans. The tight end was most certainly on the radar screen ... because he was terrible. I mean bad. I can remember thinking he was soft physically, unsure of himself mentally, and a bad draft choice. He was the worst drafted rookie at that minicamp and couldn't have made a poorer first impression.

That was almost exactly ten years ago, back in 2003. That "terrible" tight end is a perennial Pro Bowler who will almost certainly be in the Hall of Fame someday. The afterthought quarterback just signed a 6 year, $108 million extension that makes him the highest paid player in the history of one of the NFL's most storied franchises.

Yes, as many of you have no doubt figured out by now, the tight end was Jason Witten and the quarterback was Tony Romo, both of whom have become stalwarts of the Dallas Cowboys.

There's a lot of lessons to be learned here.

First of all, there wasn't a ton of pre-draft hype or conversation surrounding Witten and none for Romo. Fans and even draft analysts focus so much attention on the first round that they lose sight of the fact that good, and sometimes great, players can be had in the later rounds and even after the draft.

Even after the draft when fans, draft experts, and local beat writers evaluated (and graded, which is really funny) the Cowboys first haul under new head coach Bill Parcells there was not a ton said about Witten other than him being a developmental prospect. Again, nothing at all on Romo at that point.

Usually you can at least garner some sort of idea as to what a rookie class might have in store based upon the first impressions they make the first time they get out on the grass. Even that, especially in Witten's case, was fool's gold.

So it takes four years before you can really begin to evaluate a group. Why four? Well, Tony Romo didn't get a chance to start any games until his fourth season in Big D. If we evaluated the Cowboys 2003 draft class after three years we would have been doing it a huge disservice. Romo has become the best quarterback for the franchise since Troy Aikman and well deserving of the contract that he just received. Would Cowboys fans rather be trying to make a trade for Matt Flynn or Carson Palmer like some other NFL franchises have been recently? Didn't think so.

Romo brings up another point. Undrafted free agents count. I always think it is funny when people evaluate draft classes and don't mention the undrafted free agents. Those players are scouted thoroughly and often recruited intensely towards the tail end of the draft. They are part of that draft class and, in Romo's case, a vital part.

MAILBAG QUESTIONS: Send your questions either via email to ross@sportsusamedia.com or via Twitter to both @rosstuckernfl and @sports_usa.

First off you're doing a great job. I really like your articles that you put out. I love your outside perspective with inside the locker room knowledge.

My question is how much impact does a coach or a coordinator have in the potential success of a player? Does a players success depend on their coaches ability to put them into a position to exceed or will the players raw talent overcome any coaching in efficiencies?

From Alan via email

Thanks for the compliment Alan. That's always a good way to ensure I actually choose your email to respond to! The answer is that position coaches, coordinators, and scheme fits have a huge impact on the success or failure of any player. Some guys aren't suited for the techniques that a certain coach may want to employ. Other guys might just be an awful scheme fit.

With Monte Kiffen telling his Cowboys to watch Seahawks film and Gus Bradley now in Jacksonville could we see the Seahawks' unusual "4-3-scheme-with-3-4-Personnel" Defense being used by more teams this season?

From Jack via email

Without a doubt. It is a copy-cat league and the success the Seahawks had last year will no doubt lead to more teams having a bigger player like Red Bryant at defensive end in order to control two gaps as well as having larger corners to physically harass opposing receivers. It worked so expect the trend continue but at the same time offensive coordinators will be studying the weaknesses of that defense in order to try to exploit it. Such is the ebb and flow of coaching and schemes in the NFL.

Ever see a colleague learn he was cut over the media before receiving a call by team? Did he feel betrayed?

From @Fantasio via Twitter

No but I've certainly heard of it happening. Most of the time the team has tried to reach out to the player or his agent before the news breaks but sometimes a media insider gets word before they can alert the player. That stinks but the player is going to be upset no matter how he hears so I think the manner in which it is done is a little overrated. Is there any good way to get bad news?

Potential Buyer

Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:37:00 GMT

No wonder free agency isn't what it's cracked up to be.

Now that we are two weeks into the new NFL league year and teams have spent most of the money they are going to, at least in advance of April's draft, it is time to take stock of exactly what took place. The big money first wave that is so often fool's gold lasted less than 48 hours and I'm not sure the so-called second wave of modest bargains ever happened. It felt like it went right from big money to inexpensive one year deals, typically a sign of the third phase of the process.

But that's not what I mean when I say that it's not surprising free agency isn't what it's supposed to be. I'm actually talking about the teams and their propensity to spend big money on relatively unproven commodities like Paul Kruger (Browns), Jared Cook (Rams), and Dannell Ellerbe (Dolphins). Those teams shelled out big cash based upon the potential of those players and "potential" is a very dirty word in the NFL because it means you haven't proven you can do it yet --- at least not on a consistent basis.

To put it in proper perspective, I was admittedly a very average NFL player yet I started 24 games by the end of my fourth season. Ellerbe (14 starts), Cook (12) and Kruger (6) have all started just a fraction of the games I did thru our fourth campaign.

Now, number of games started is certainly not the be all end all but if a guy is worth $6-$8million a year with double that amount in guaranteed money wouldn't you think that they would have a found a way to get on the field on a more consistent basis during their first four years in the NFL? We're not talking about first or second year guys here, they've been around a while at this point.

I know what you are thinking. Ross, these teams are paying for what they think these players will do, not what they have done. I understand that and agree wholeheartedly with that philosophy but it seems to me like these teams are making a lot of big projections for these players based upon natural physical ability and/or flashes of brilliance.

My guess is just one of these three players will end up being worth what their new franchise is paying them while the other two will represent bad investments for their clubs. Which one pans out is anybody's guess. No wonder most of the best teams shy away from the early stages of free agency.

It is almost like the best strategy for truly getting big money in free agency as a player these days is to barely play your first three years in the NFL and then make enough plays in your fourth year that some team out there thinks you are an "ascending" player with a tremendous amount of "upside" that they are going to benefit from. Those are words that should be associated with draft choices not NFL veterans going into their fifth year in the league.

I don't mind paying big money in free agency but at least give me a proven commodity please. Even though in hindsight it looks like both teams overpaid, I'll take new Titans offensive guard Andy Levitre and Dolphins wide receiver Mike Wallace any day of the week over the aforementioned unproven trio. At least I've actually seen those guys perform at a consistently high level of play for several years now and I have some tangible proof that they can do it because they have done it.

The thing all of these players have in common is that they are young, but even that term is relative and makes me laugh. I have heard many analysts, sometimes during the same show, talk about 27 and 28 year olds as being "young" while players 29 and 30 years of age were "old" or "older".

Really? A 28 year old guy is young but a 29 year old player is old? These analysts do realize those players could be separated by just a few months, right? And even if it is a full 12 months, is that really that much of a difference? I think not and in fact it is comical, especially when you consider this is a year to year league and there isn't much job security for these decision makers. Are they really that worried about how the player will perform five years from now?

There are dozens of NFL players that either still are or have proven that they can play at a high level in their mid-30s like Tony Gonzalez, London Fletcher, Charles Woodson, Antoine Winfield, and Takeo Spikes, just to name a few. We're supposed to be concerned about how a guy is going to perform in their early 30's?

That's why I think players like Elvis Dumervil, Wes Welker, and likely even Greg Jennings represent tremendous value for the Ravens, Broncos, and Vikings respectively given their age and price. Dumervil and Jennings are just 29 years old while Welker is a spry 31. Highly productive players, which all three of them most certainly are, have an increasing tendency to perform at a high level in their early 30's.

Don't just take my word for it.

"When I was 34 I started feeling it but at age 30, 31, 32, 33 I felt great," Giants all-time leading receiver Amani Toomer told me recently, adding "Age 31 was one of my best seasons. I was totally fine. It wasn't until 34 that I could noticeably feel the difference."

Plus the new CBA has reduced the rigors of training camp and the grind of the season to the point where players will have longer careers and be more productive later in those careers than ever before. Some of the guys I played with tell me that training camp is now a "joke" or "so easy". You can't tell me their performance in their early 30's won't be affected by this dynamic. How could it not? Just like "40 is the new 30" in society perhaps "31 is the new 29" in NFL circles.

The bottom line is that everyone talks about "buyer beware" in free agency and how spending big money in March doesn't equate to success in January. I agree that that is often the case but maybe that's because they are spending the big money on the wrong people?

MAILBAG QUESTIONS: Send your questions either via email to ross@sportsusamedia.com or via Twitter to both @rosstuckernfl and @sports_usa.

A quick question do we listeners of Football Today ESPN podcast can expect you back on the show anytime soon?

Your Twitter bio says you are among other jobs a "writer/analyst" for ESPN.com, is that phrase an opportunity for hope of having your insights and humour at Football Today.

From Jorge via email

I will not be back on Football Today but I will DEFINITELY have a podcast and hope to make an announcement in the next week or two. Stay tuned and thanks for listening!

I love your insight into the players' mentality and will keep following you as you change platforms. (I hope you can use that as leverage to get a big raise.)

Do you know of an agent who represented two players on the same team who might have been put in the situation where helping one of his clients get a big contract led to another of his clients being released? Does Joe Flacco's agent have any other clients on the Ravens? How does he help them now?

From Aaron via email

I am sure the scenario you detail has played out before but the agent's job is to work in the best interests of each individual client while negotiating on their behalf. If it so happens that a player gets cut because a teammate with the same agent gets a new contract that is a team decision and the agent can't control it. Plus, the odds are they wanted to ultimately cut that player anyway and that new contract was just the impetus to make that happen.

if the NFL wants a longer season, why not 3 games a month? Stretch out season, less wear and tear.

From @BryanPhillips1 via Twitter

What you are proposing is every team having one bye week a month. That would make the season really drag out and be awkward for everyone involved including the fans. I think they would start with giving every team a second bye week during the season and see how that goes first if the goal is to increase the available TV inventory.

Signing Day

Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:00:00 GMT

I have no idea how it would work and as a result don't think it would.

That's my initial reaction to the proposed NFL free agent "Signing Day" that may be in the works according to not only a couple of recent media reports but also former Chiefs General Manager Scott Pioli, who served on the General Managers Committee for years and mentioned on our Sirius XM NFL Radio show on Friday that the concept had been discussed.

The recent NFL legal tampering period, which may go down as the most awkward 87 hours in NFL history, certainly hints at a signing day of sorts that would take place exactly one year from now. The NFL instituted this tampering period ostensibly to generate more buzz around free agency and then effectively killed it by sending out a strongly worded memo on the Friday before it began warning teams that any report of an agreement in principle would be illegal, investigated, and grounds for tampering. Talk about a buzz kill. The legal tampering period was the biggest flop since Fosbury invented his back in 1968.

Why would the NFL crush the excitement surrounding the legal tampering period? Well for one many of their network partners, and the NFL's own network as well, have built up multi-layered and multi-platform programming around the start of the new league year which is when free agency commences. They likely wouldn't have been happy if word leaked of agreements in principle on Saturday and Sunday, taking all of the steam out of their Tuesday and Wednesday line-up.

Just as likely is that the NFL is eager for another event and this is their way to set the table for it. The fact that multiple league insiders have mentioned to me the idea of a "Signing Day" of sorts similar to what now occurs at the college level on the first Wednesday in February leads me to believe this train is already pretty far down the tracks. I don't mind the idea in principle but the more I think about it it seems as if it would be very difficult to pull off in practice.

To be clear, I am all for the NFL thinking outside the box in order to grow the game. The old saying in the NFL as a player is you are either getting better or you are getting worse, the idea being that you never stay the same. Well, the NFL executives have taken that mantra to heart because they are always looking at new revenue streams or new ways to grow the game and I'm all for it. Most, like the three day primetime draft and having a game on the Sunday night of the World Series have been a big hit.

The problems with a signing day in the NFL, however, are many.

Let's start with where does the player announce who he is signing with or, "pick the hat" so to speak? The high school recruits typically do it at their high school and that makes sense as it represents a safe haven. Would the NFL player do it at the facility of his former club? Or perhaps a new one that he is visiting as a free agent? Well, that could get very awkward if he doesn't, you know, sign with that team.

Would it be a LeBron James-like situation in which the player makes the "Decision" at a local boys club or someplace neutral like that? Some people I spoke with have even suggested that the players could agree to terms and then fly under a shroud of secrecy to the city of their new franchise for the announcement.

Like this entire concept I'm afraid, that's not going to work. In an era of twitter and people tracking planes and flight plans, that information would get out.

Plus that isn't even the biggest hurdle to a proposed "Signing Day". These are not letters of intent that all look and are the same. These are financial agreements. They have terms. That means the deals would need to be in place ahead of time and all the principals would have to know it. I guess that could happen but for it to take place with no leaks whatsoever? Good luck.

Not to mention this is a business and a market in which the financial principles of supply and demand are in play. If the top wide receiver, like Mike Wallace for instance, signs with one team, the demand for the next most highly sought after guy, say Greg Jennings, is increased because the supply of top flight receivers is down and so the demand is increased. Jennings' deal is affected by whatever Wallace gets.

Plus this whole thing is intertwined with restructured contracts and salary cap casualties, a lot of which is dependent on what happens in free agency. Simply put, it seems to me like it would be a logistical nightmare.

So I'm all for outside the box ideas but Signing Day is one that should probably stay in the box ... forever. Just like the bummer that was the legal tampering period.

MAILBAG QUESTIONS: Send your questions either via email to ross@sportsusamedia.com or via Twitter to both @rosstuckernfl and @sports_usa.

Ross, are you going to be doing any different podcasts now that you aren't doing the football today cast?

From @pat0915 via Twitter

I will absolutely be doing a football podcast and hope to make some sort of an announcement soon. Stay tuned!

Which QB do u think the Bills will pick and will they keep Fitz?

From @no1billsfan via Twitter

I think they will keep Ryan Fitzpatrick for this year because he would only save them $450,000 on the salary cap and represent $10M in dead money if they cut him. Plus, he is the best quarterback that they have and my guess is they will take a guy like Ryan Nassib in the second round but there is no telling when he'll be available.

Danario Alexander had a decent year for SD. Why offer so low?

From @davdchapman via Twitter

Because they can. He is a restricted free agent and they gave him a low tender which enables them to match any other financial offer he may get. Plus, with his chronic knees, they likely don't think anyone else would make him a big offer that they wouldn't match.

Human Resources

Tue, 05 Mar 2013 08:00:00 GMT

Where do you draw the line?

That's the question that I keep coming back to in light of the revelation by several draft prospects, including Colorado tight end Nick Kasa and Michigan State running back Le'Veon Bell, that they were asked about their sexuality during combine interviews last month in Indy at the NFL combine.

Kasa told a radio station that he was asked if he "liked girls" during a line of questioning delving into his family life and background. The sexuality question is inappropriate and in fact illegal given the fact that Kasa is a prospective employee and this is a job interview. The NFL immediately issued a strongly worded statement that they would investigate the situation but as of now nothing has come from it.

NFL teams shouldn't be able to ask that question because federal law prohibits it. But how many other things happen in the context of professional football that would be red-flagged by your company's Human Resources Department if not reported directly to the police? Should they all be treated the same as any other workplace environment?

I'm not condoning the question at all even though I highly doubt the interviewer, whoever it was, was really trying to find out the players' sexuality. My strong suspicion is he was trying to rattle the player, to get him out of his comfort zone, to see how he would handle it. Many league executives believe that players are now so prepped for every aspect of the combine process that it is hard to really get to know them. None of this is an excuse, mind you, just the possible reason.

Which gets us back to the question at hand regarding the NFL as a workplace environment. Should I have reported Lavar Arrington to the local authorities and had him charged with attempted manslaughter in 2002 when he got my Redskins helmet off during a practice skirmish and swung it at my head as hard as he could (he missed, thankfully)? Or maybe just assault for the right hook he landed to the side of my head that forced me to get 4 stitches in my left ear after I bled profusely through the rest of that practice?

Should the pair of Browns defensive linemen to whom I told during a TV timeout in 2004 that I was going to break their legs because I was tired of their post-play shenanigans, including spitting in my face, have alerted the authorities in Buffalo that I threatened them with bodily harm in the workplace?

Sounds laughable, I know, but what is allowed and what isn't since this is football and football is, well, different.

I talk with my friends. I hear about the things that are taboo and the things that get reported to HR in the real world. If the NFL was like that, the HR people would be literally buried in paperwork and reports by the end of one week. You honestly can't even imagine what an NFL locker room is like.

Actually, you probably can. It is pretty much the same as the locker room in high school only multiplied by 100. Remember the star jock who used to bust on everybody else? That's everyone in an NFL locker room. It's pretty much the least professional workplace environment I can imagine.

And don't even get me started on wrongful termination. I've heard from business owners how difficult it can be to legally let go of an underperforming employee. Can you imagine if an NFL guy filed one of those lawsuits? Guys get cut because they are hurt or because the position coach recommended they draft a different guy or whatever but a lot of times it isn't exactly a good reason. Come to think of it, maybe I should do that for one of the times I got fired. What is the statute of limitations on those things?

All joking aside, I don't know what the answer is. I really don't. What I do know is that if the NFL fines or takes away draft picks from the team that asked the sexuality questions, as has been suggested by some, they are potentially opening up a whole big can of worms and going down a path I doubt they want any part of.

MAILBAG QUESTIONS: Send your questions either via email to ross@sportsusamedia.com or via Twitter to both @rosstuckernfl and @sports_usa.

Would you rather play for a coach who has embraced a lot of the research over the last few years, or an effective coach who learned from the past few decades. The newer coach probably gives your team a better chance to win (being more aggressive on fourth down, better allocation of the salary cap, running backs and ILB being a little more fungible, etc.), but that probably means he is more likely to release a slightly overpaid, but still productive, veteran.

I guess I'm asking you to expand on your discussion from the podcast regarding Wes Welker and Bill Belichick. Would YOU rather play for Bill Belichick or Jeff Fisher?

From Aaron via email

Well first of all I'm not sure Fisher or Belichick fit as nicely into the category that you placed them as you might think. Secondly, and I have been very consistent about this, my priority would always be what would be best for me and thus my family. It is a job and the risk of injury comes with the reward of being well compensated.

The New Orleans Saints have been less than stellar in recent years in finding a big time defensive player in the first round of the NFL draft. Patrick Robinson, Sedrick Ellis and Malcolm Jenkins have all underperformed. Who would you choose at 15 to help the Saints moving forward on that side of the ball?

From Graeme via email

Always get a lot of questions about the draft and I always think it is relatively fruitless until free agency is in the rear view mirror. Who a team drafts depends greatly on which of their own free agents they retain, what other free agents they might sign, and then who is available when their selection in the draft comes. My recommendation is to think mainly about positions of need right now and the many ways in which those needs can be filled.

With the Steelers dealing with the cap and potential releases of veterans, would you say that they are rebuilding? Also, can you give your thoughts on what they should do in the draft and free agency and what type of year you see them having next season. You are awesome!

From Sulaiman via email

Thank you for being so perceptive. I am, in fact, awesome. I'm kidding. I think. See my answer above in terms of free agency and the draft. The Steelers at this point are just trying to work out deals to retain their own guys. As for rebuilding? No way. The Steelers never do and quite frankly they shouldn't with a quarterback like Ben Roethlisberger in his prime.

Harsh Reality

Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:34:00 GMT

Sorry Manti but it matters.

That's all I kept thinking as a number of NFL coaches, general managers, and television analysts proclaimed time and again over the weekend at the Combine that his unfortunate catfishing incident would not have an impact on his draft status and how teams feel about him. "It's all about what he does on the field" they all said.

Yes and no.

The reality is that it should affect how teams feel about him because it is darn sure going to affect how the guys in the locker room, their players, feel about him. But don't just take my word for it.

"I don't want him," one veteran scout from a linebacker-needy team told me, "Leadership is one of his big positives but he won't have that now because guys in the locker room are going to really be hard on him ... he'll be a target ...he's going to have to play lights out for a while to gain that back."

Bingo.

I played for five different teams and can say without equivocation that Te'o is going to be tested. Many players will think he is soft. They'll think he is a punk because, well, he got punk'd. We are talking about an environment in which promiscuity is respected if not encouraged. Long relationships on the phone and internet with a girl you never even met? Not so much.

NFL locker rooms aren't like the rest of society. They're not politically correct and they're not any place for someone with a weakness, which is exactly what Te'o's incident is to many of them, a sign of that weakness.

I haven't decided whether he should just laugh it off or punch the first guy that busts his chops in the face and nip it in the bud right then and there but those are the only two choices as far as I see it. Everyone remember the Prince Amukamara video?

If that sounds harsh, don't get mad at me. I didn't invent the rules of the locker room, I'm just explaining them.

If you need any further proof, just consider the fact that Te'o's transgression, if you can even call it that, will be considered a far greater offense and of much more concern in their eyes than the DUI fellow projected first round linebacker Alec Ogletree recently was arrested for. The general managers who may consider Ogletree a character risk given the fact that he also was suspended for a positive drug test during his days with the Georgia Bulldogs will likely feel differently but neither one of those incidents will bother the players all that much. Neither one of those represents a potential toughness flaw for Ogletree on the field and many players will realize that either one of those incidents very easily could've happened to them in college. That is simply not the case with Te'o's unusual situation.

To his credit, Te'o handled his media obligation at the Combine on Saturday extremely well. I was proud of him. He seems like a fine young man that was incredibly naive and then made some mistakes, which he freely admits, after realizing that he had been duped. As much as anything, I feel bad for him.

The only way I see him being able to overcome this is with a superior performance on the field. Any chink in his football armor will allow his teammates to think he is flawed in more ways than one. If he dominates the catfish thing will be a distant memory. If he is just ok it will linger and could become a big problem. But is he good enough to ever dominate?

"I want my defensive leader to be a flat out bad ass, a leader of men that no one would mess (he didn't say mess, use your imagination) with," that same veteran scout told me, "I just can't picture him being that guy."

There's some truth to that. The middle linebacker is the signal caller on almost every team. With that role comes some built-in leadership responsibilities and Te'o is going to have to earn that by playing extremely well right away because the combination of the girlfriend incident and his performance in the BCS National Championship game against Alabama, which most of his future teammates watched, will be hard to overcome.

I hope he does. It will make this whole ordeal he has gone through a much better story if it can have a happy ending.

Just don't tell me what happened to him off the field doesn't matter because it absolutely does to the other testosterone laden young men in that locker room Te'o will be entering in May.

MAILBAG QUESTIONS: Send your questions either via email to ross@sportsusamedia.com or via Twitter to both @rosstuckernfl and @sports_usa.

What if the NFL incorporated a flagrant scoring system with
unnecessary roughness penalties, shots to the head, similar to
basketball. A flagrant 1 is an unintentional head to head contact that
is a 15 yd penalty. Flagrant 2 is reserved for head seekers, which
would result in 15 yards AND automatic ejection. Both hits would
result in varying Goodell bonus check amounts like they do now.
Also the head penalties were created to protect not only the victim
but the hitter as well. That being said shouldn't the offensive player
also be subject to penalties for lowering his head with intent to make
contact with the crown of the helmet? Battering Ram, Offensive
Spearing.

From Jeremy via Email

It's not a bad thought but they effectively already have your flagrant one/two system in place. The officials have the right to eject a player should he deliver a blow that is especially egregious although that is extremely rare. The fine amounts vary based upon the nature of the blow and the history of the player delivering that blow. As for the offensive player, I understand your point but I just can't imagine them being able to legislate anything in that regard.

Cowboys drafted a 4th round OG 2 years ago and he has yet to play a snap. Is he a bust? How long does it take an OG to get stronger?

From @xcfrancisco via Twitter

You are referencing David Arkin out of Missouri State and it is too early to call him a bust but the fact that they signed two free agent guards last offseason even though Arkin had a year under his belt is not a good sign. Even when those guys were banged up they put in other veterans like Derrick Dockery into the game ahead of him. It is not a matter of strength at this point, it is a matter of whether or not they trust him to go in the game. If they don't trust him this upcoming year they likely never will.

How about some suggestions on how to call an illegal hit?

From @NCRaven10 via Twitter

I've been over this a million times and in fact you can check my archive and read about it in greater detail if you like but the short version is that they shouldn't throw the flag unless they are sure it is an illegal hit. The current standard is essentially "when in doubt, throw the flag" which I abhor. The idea is to discourage these types of hits and I believe you can do this by simply fining the players greater and greater amounts if the hit is in fact illegal and warrants it. I know that would deter my behavior, that's for sure.

Full Disclosure

Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:29:00 GMT

What's the big secret?

There will be a new aptitude test for all of the draft prospects that attend the NFL combine that begins later this week in Indianapolis. The idea is that the Wonderlic, the standardized test of choice for years, is limited and the new test has been updated in order to not only identify different types of intelligence across various socio-economic backgrounds among the NFL hopefuls but also attempt to ascertain some personality characteristics as well.

I'm all for it. It's worth a shot and if the teams don't feel as if it is very helpful they can dismiss it as quickly as they introduced it this year.

My issue is that, like the Wonderlic, the results of the new test will never be made available to the public. My question is and always has been, why?

I've never understood and never heard one good reason to treat these results like a state secret, with only one executive on each team getting access to the results because of a fear that the scores might get leaked. Which, by the way, they still do pretty much every year for the prospects that fare especially poorly because there is always one team out there that hopes the player might fall to them in the draft once it is publicly known how badly they did on the test.

The reason most often given for not disclosing the information is that it is a sensitive issue because of the fact that intelligence, or at least perceived intelligence, is involved and nobody wants to be branded a dunce if they get a bad score.

Really? Is this professional football or 3rd grade we are talking about here? Sensitivity? Good luck being an NFL player if you are overly sensitive or have a thin skin. Besides, the guys that will score poorly have probably had bad standardized test scores their entire life. They know the deal and they still got to this point so who cares.

And what about the players that can't run very fast or jump very high or look especially bad when they have to walk out on the stage in their underwear so all of the scouts can examine their physiques and take pictures of them, pictures that are pretty much readily available on the internet I might add? Are they any less sensitive about their shortcomings?

It's different, the critics say. This is intelligence and not a physical characteristic. These scores can stay with a player forever and he can get ridiculed by teammates and it may even have an adverse affect on his post-football job prospects.

Well I've got one child and another on the way and what my wife and I talk about all of the time in terms of raising and disciplining them is consistency. Where is the consistency in making every number generated from the scouting combine available for public consumption except the Wonderlic or new aptitude test score? You could argue the NFL is the one making the big deal about it and making the score more significant than it really is by trying to hide it.

This really does remind me of elementary school in which the scores on math tests are kept a secret in order to spare some feelings yet it is ok for the bigger, stronger kids to smoke the nerdier, weaker kids in the head twice a week every week when they play dodgeball (we called in "bombardment"?) in gym class?

I speak from experience here. My physical numbers during the pre-draft process were below average for an offensive lineman and while I wasn't necessarily overly sensitive about it I certainly wasn't happy about it and probably would have preferred that information be disbursed to as few people as possible. Instead, those numbers from my pro day were available for anyone to see at anytime on some of those draft websites.

My wonderlic score? That was comparatively very good yet it was nowhere to be found.

I say make it all available or make none of it available. If it is an important enough part of the process to be included in the festivities in Indy than everyone should be able to see those numbers as well; height, weight, arm length, bench press reps, aptitude score, forty time, vertical, broad jump. It should be included as just another small part of the overall evaluation process.

Besides, just like the physical numbers it is not some kind of ultimate predictor of NFL success. Plenty of guys with low aptitude test scores have gone on to have great careers while guys with high scores on the Wonderlic never play a down in the league. They still haven't come up with an effective standardized test to predict football intelligence and that is what really matters.

While I haven't seen it yet an improved standardized test sounds like a great first step. Let's take the next one and make the results of it public. It's only fair.

MAILBAG QUESTIONS: Send your questions either via email to ross@sportsusamedia.com or via Twitter to both @rosstuckernfl and @sports_usa.

One of my minor irks in the NFL is how ragged teams look when arriving at games. Every player has their own clothes on whether it is smart-casual, athletic gear or a full suit, it looks ridiculous. Why is it not commonplace for the team to have an official tracksuit or suit to wear when traveling to games? I believe once one team adopts it, the rest will follow.

From Graeme Young via email

Well I certainly wouldn't want you to be irked. Most teams have a dress code for away games since they are travelling as a team and it usually includes a jacket and tie so there is some uniformity and respectability there. Home teams, on the other hand, have no code which is why there is a wide disparity in what you see when the television cameras show guys walking into the stadium. I dressed very casually for home games because I would typically tailgate with my family afterwards and wanted to be comfortable.

Did 49ers miss best chance to win Super Bowl, since defenses now have time to figure out the Pistol offense?

From @whiteygleason via Twitter

That is a really interesting question and theory but you are assuming that the Pistol offense can be "figured out", whatever that ultimately means or looks like. The Niners were in the mix the year before with Alex Smith and didn't even run the Pistol so I think they will continue to be in the thick of things. Still, it's a lot to ask of them to get all the way back to the Super Bowl and win it this year. Teams just don't typically make that many extended playoff runs in a row.

With the Bengals having huge cap space, what free agents make the most sense?

From @MasterSamPHD via Twitter

Are you familiar with the Bengals organization? They like to make money, not spend it. It will be interesting to see what they do with free agent right tackle Andre Smith given his unique combination of improved performance and penchant for being lazy. Other than that I think they have to re-sign defensive end Michael Johnson and I'd strongly consider giving defensive tackle Geno Atkins an extension now if I were them. I'm a big believer in taking care of and retaining your own player first because you always have more information regarding the type of people they are and how they will fit in your scheme.

No Middle Class

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:52:00 GMT

The NFL is getting closer and closer to completely eliminating the middle class of football players.

It's natural given the relatively flat salary cap environment, I suppose, but disappointing nonetheless for a former member of the veteran proletariat. It is what happens when stars and high end starters either hit the market and go to the highest bidder or get record-breaking extensions like Drew Brees and Calvin Johnson all while the rookie wage scale and it's minimal increases remains essentially the same.

There's only one place where the money can come from if the salary cap is staying flat and it's not the "difference makers" or the rookies; the average guy like you and me. Ok, so maybe a low-end starter or high-end back-up isn't exactly a working stiff but the fact remains that this is the group that is getting squeezed, pinched, or just expunged altogether.

It makes sense, right? The top end guys, the difference makers like Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco, Chiefs wide receiver Dwayne Bowe, and Bears defensive tackle Henry Melton are always going to play leap frog with the current standard for elite players at their position and push that number to a higher level. Teams believe that those guys can have a material impact on wins and losses and as such they are willing to pay a premium even though there is a chance that they'll have to cut a solid player in order to do it. It's inevitable, then, that those guys will chew up more and more of the fixed cap. Even if they don't break the bank or set a new standard, their number isn't going down. That's somebody else's problem.

Speaking of Flacco, despite conversation to the contrary I believe the Ravens would be fine slapping him with the regular franchise tag as opposed to the exclusive tag. Though a team might believe Flacco is worth the two first round picks and exorbitant offer sheet they would need to sign him to I just can't imagine the Ravens not matching it, whatever it is. Most if not all teams would probably think they are just wasting their time unless it is a division foe and the goal actually is to have the Ravens match a contract that pays Flacco an obscene amount of money in year one, thus forcing Baltimore to cut and/or fail to retain some good players. Not a bad strategy but I doubt anyone has the stones to do it.

But that's not the point. The point is that Flacco, and the other top fifty free agents like him, are going to command top dollar for their services. At a minimum, a lot more than they are making now.

Sure, some teams will trim cap fat like the Lions have already done with Kyle Vanden Bosch and Stephen Peterman and the Giants have done with Michael Boley, Ahmad Bradshaw, and Chris Canty but can't you see what that means for those players? It means that they are now considered to be in the upper class high rent district by their teams and as such needed to go. They are now members of the middle class and that is not a very good place to be these days.

There will be very few players making between $1.5 million and $4 million a year. Veterans who aren't among the chosen ones given a long-term $5 million-plus a year deal will likely have to settle for a one year, $1 million deal. Or even worse, the league minimum. It is basically the haves and the have nots at this point.

It actually reminds me of the Indianapolis Colts during the Bill Polian era. They paid guys like Peyton Manning, Dwight Freeney, Reggie Wayne, and Dallas Clark so much money that they didn't have very much veteran depth or middle class players. Pretty much everyone else was a young guy working for the minimum salary on a rookie contract. You can certainly win that way but those top-end guys better be very good and you need to find some diamonds in the rough among the young guys.

The flat cap hasn't hurt the stars or the rookies, it has hurt the average guys. That may not matter to you or most fans but I can't imagine this is what the NFLPA had in mind when agreeing to the new CBA. Unfortunately for the majority of NFL veterans, the new NFL is not a financially friendly place to be.

I'd love to get your insight into a player's mindset in the upcoming "downtime" after the season. I don't mean the training regimen and such, but rather their attention on league matters. Do players pay any attention to the draft and scouting combines? Do you keep an eye on what the media speculates your team needs are? Specifically, do you, as a player, pay any more attention if the media highlights your position as a weakness to be addressed? Same goes for the Free Agency period for players already under contract - how aware are they of what is going on?

From Steph via email

It really varies greatly from player to player. There are some that don't read or listen to anything and just live a decidedly non football-centric life. Then there are others like I was that read and watch everything. There are pros and cons to each but I still remember calling a couple of teammates when we released Drew Bledsoe in Buffalo and they had no idea. I couldn't believe that.

Would Jeff Fisher still take Rams job over Miami if he knew about Kap and Russell along with Miami's cap space?

From @dolphindave66 via Twitter

That's a good question because there is now way he had any idea that Kaepernick and Russell Wilson would be so good and make the NFC West so ultra-competitive. I think when Fisher took the job he thought that he had the best quarterback in the division and now former number one overall pick Sam Bradford is third. Plus, the AFC East looks much more appealing from a competition standpoint with the Bills and Jets making regrouping if not rebuilding. Ultimately though I think he picked St. Louis because of the owner and the chance to bring his own personnel man, Les Snead, into the fold. That was not the case in Miami.

Vick has the most turnovers of any player in the NFL why would the Eagles want to keep him & he gets hurt too much?

From @PhillyFreak1973 via Twitter

Because it is a no-lose situation for the Eagles. His physical skill set is ideally suited for the up-tempo zone-read offense that Chip Kelly employs and if he turns the ball over or gets hurt they will just move on since there is no big financial commitment on their part.

Truth in Hiring

Tue, 05 Feb 2013 15:06:00 GMT

Don't jump to conclusions or make rash judgments.

The 2012 season is over (depressing, I know) and as such it is time to turn our attention to what has been and will continue to be the biggest story of the NFL offseason: minority hiring. The "system is broken, major changes are needed, this is an outrage, the Rooney Rule is failing" they say. Well, "they" need to relax and take a broader viewpoint because right now it feels to me as if they are way too narrowly focused.

It's been well documented that there were an unprecedented 15 openings combined this offseason for Head Coach and General Manager positions. Not a single one went to a minority. That's surprising to say the least but in some way understandable when you look at each individual circumstance and more importantly not a large enough sample size on which to draw any significant conclusions.

First of all, these are still private businesses with the right to hire whomever they want to run the football operations for their billion dollar franchises. The Rooney Rule stipulates that a minority candidate must be interviewed but these owners can still hire the person that they deem right for the job. If Arizona GM Steve Keim picks Bruce Arians over Ray Horton as head coach, that is his prerogative. If Jets owner Woody Johnson tags John Idzik instead of Marc Ross as his new general manager that is totally fine by me and should be by you as well.

The biggest thing that people are missing is that a number of qualified minority candidates, especially among the head coaching fraternity, rejected the overtures of NFL teams. Most people believe Stanford head coach David Shaw would have gotten offered some jobs were he so inclined. Same goes for Texas A&M head man Kevin Sumlin. Horton, the new Browns defensive coordinator, was such a hot name that he is now making $2 million a year in Cleveland. He could be one of the more sought after candidates on the coaching circuit again next year. We all know Tony Dungy could get a job coaching a team in the NFL if he ever wanted to get back in. Heck, there's a chance that there could be five head coaching openings during next year's hiring cycle and all of them go to minorities if Lovie Smith's proven track record nets him an opportunity as well. I could even add Jim Caldwell to this mix as well.

The general manager pool of qualified minority candidates does not appear as deep at this point but Ross from the Giants and Jimmy Raye, now with the Colts, seem to be destined for the top job at some point. Maybe even next year.

It is not as if minorities have to prove themselves. We are long past that. Dungy, Smith, and Mike Tomlin have all been excellent coaches and the track record of minority general managers is even more impressive. In fact, you could make a case that the Ravens Ozzie Newsome, Giants Jerry Reese, and Texans Rick Smith are the three best general managers in the business right now.

My suggestion is to either eliminate the Rooney Rule, which stipulates that at least one minority must be interviewed for those top positions, or expand it.

I don't see any reason why teams can't interview at least five candidates for each of these positions. The Bears and Eagles each interviewed more than ten for their coaching job. More interviews will create more opportunities for everyone to show what they're made of, including minorities.

I also think the Rooney Rule could be expanded to the offensive and defensive coordinator positions because at this point there just aren't enough minority candidates out there at offensive coordinator and the current trend is to hire an offensive minded coach. The Ravens' Caldwell is the only such play-caller in the league currently and he wasn't even doing it until Cam Cameron was let go.

Eliminating the rule altogether would be fine by me as well. Is it really necessary? Minorities have proven themselves countless times at both positions and the pool of minority coaching candidates for next year appears robust at this point. Because of the rule these is almost a stigma attached with a minority that gets interviewed for these positions, like it is just a "token" interview because they have to. I don't like that.

That's why I believe this year was an aberration. While I'd prefer that they make one of my suggested changes to the Rooney Rule the reality is it is only one year and the results of the hiring process could be, and likely will be, very different a year from now.

MAILBAG QUESTIONS: Send your questions either via email to ross@sportsusamedia.com or via Twitter to both @rosstuckernfl and @sports_usa.

Wanted to write to congratulate you on being the ONLY member of the media whom
I have heard question the NFL/ESPN narrative on the supposed "problem" of a
lack of minority head coach hires this year. There is a historical reason for
the Rooney Rule, and I think you have a nice point that mandating a minimum
number of interviews might help to avoid pure and blatant tokenism. I also
think your off-the-cuff list of 4 obvious black HC hires for next year is spot
on -- all great hires. What I would like to hear from ANY media outlet is a
sober analysis of what you referred to on the podcast: look beyond this year.
Is there a trend? Over how many years? How does the % of minority coaches in
the NFL (say coordinators and HCs) compare to the representation of minorities
in the general populace?? To the representation of minorities in the NFL?? To
the representation of minorities in the population of NLF (or NFL and NCAA)
coaches overall? If we had numbers like those, then we'd have some basis to
understand whether this year is a warning sign, or just an outlier. Minorities
may be underrepresented, but I have heard not a single word of research or
analysis to date that indicates that. Let's find out what the real story is
before reacting with panic.

From Joe in Stafford County, VA via email

Thanks for listening to the ESPN Football Today podcast Joe. Perhaps I'll write a column on those thoughts?!

Did Kaepernick make the biggest transformation in the league this year, from unknown back-up to superstar?

From @PGregorski via Twitter

Yeah I'd say so. Are than any other viable candidates? Maybe that should be a new award ever year, the "came out of nowhere" award.

I agree Jim Harbaugh is animated, but did you really say he is a buffoon?

From @wsirwin33

I said he acts like a buffoon and I meant it. He is so incredulous about any call that goes against his team that I really think it hurts his team. For one thing, every second he spends throwing a temper tantrum is another second he could be focusing on the next game situation. Secondly, he is like the little boy that cried wolf. How do the refs know when he is really upset about a truly blown call when he reacts the same way to every call? Plus it sets a horrible example for coaches at the lower levels about how to conduct yourself on the sideline. Just horrible.

Bolder Move

Tue, 29 Jan 2013 17:06:00 GMT

The Harbaugh Bowl. The Harbowl. The SuperBaugh.

It has been and will continue to be discussed ad nauseam but the odds of two brothers coaching each other in the Super Bowl really are astronomical. Think about how few of the tens of thousands of football coaches around the country ever reach the NFL level in any capacity. Then consider the small percentage of them that actually get a chance to become a head coach. Then have enough success that they get their team to the Super Bowl? And that one year they happen to get to the Super Bowl it happens to be against their brother? It's infinitesimal.

What makes it even more impressive is that neither one of them would be in this game on Sunday if it weren't for one bold move that they made with their respective teams. Sure, that is why these guys are paid the big bucks, to make the tough decisions. Still, it is so much easier to just continue with the status quo, especially on teams that were leading their division when these big changes were made.

By now the moves have been well documented. Jim Harbaugh, out in San Francisco, was first. He benched starting quarterback Alex Smith after Smith missed a mid-season game against the Bears with a concussion in favor of unproven second year quarterback Colin Kaepernick. Smith, by the way, was completing better than 70% of his passes up until that point and had led his team to the conference championship game the year before while winning way more than he lost under Jim.

John was next in Baltimore. He fired long-time offensive coordinator Cam Cameron, a guy who had helped the Ravens get to two conference championship games himself in the last four years, with just three games left in the regular season. Three games!

Both moves were extremely rare if not unprecedented.

And both have absolutely paid off in spades.

The question is, which move was bolder? Both Harbaugh brothers deserve a ton of credit for pulling the trigger but which one took more guts? There are factors in favor of each.

Jim made a move that he knew would not be enormously popular in the locker room. Smith was the established veteran, was playing well, and most players have no interest in helping a young guy learn on the job when the team already has a good chance to get to the Super Bowl if they just keep things the way they are. Plus it is the all-important quarterback position which means everyone, from Joe Fan to the morning radio talk show host, is going to have an opinion and scrutinize it heavily.

John's move was met with little resistance. Cameron was not exceedingly popular among the Baltimore faithful and, well, players have a way of thinking that it is somebody's fault other than their own. That somebody, in the Ravens case, was Cameron.

There wasn't anybody pleading for the Ravens to keep Cameron while there was a large segment of Niners fans, and more importantly players, that thought Jim was taking too big of a risk by putting the kid in at quarterback. The Ravens had lost two in a row and many thought John has nothing to lose at that point.

All of that is in Jim's favor, and are the main reasons why most people would lean toward his move being the bolder one.

What is not talked about enough, however, is that it is not like Jim made his move sight unseen or out of the blue. He got a sneak peak, a taste test if you will, with Kaepernick starting in place of Smith in a Monday night game against the Chicago Bears. Kaepernick played well and showed enough poise and touch, to go along with his impressive speed and arm strength, that Jim felt comfortable giving him another start.

And therein lies the key. It is not as if Jim's move to Kaepernick had to be permanent. He could always go back to Smith if Kaepernick struggled. Sure, maybe it would affect Smith's confidence a little bit but it was still a card that Jim could play. So not only did he get a look-see from Kaepernick he also knew he could always just use a mulligan and go back to Smith if the youngster proved himself to not be ready yet.

John had neither. He didn't get a chance to watch new offensive coordinator Jim Caldwell call plays, something he hadn't done since coaching at Wake Forest in the 90's, before making his decision. He also knew that there was no turning back. Once a guy is fired, he's gone. Cameron had called a good enough game that the Ravens really should have made the Super Bowl a year ago were it not for Patriots cornerback Sterling Moore ripping the game-winning touchdown ball out of Lee Evans hands in the end zone. Did John really think they were past the point of no return? They were as soon as he relieved Cameron of his duties.

So while the mainstream media, whatever that means, fawns over Jim's decision like they do his record over the last two years, do yourself a favor and consider the depth of John's decision just like the depth of his five year track record in Baltimore.

It just might surprise you.

MAILBAG QUESTIONS: Send your questions either via email to ross@sportsusamedia.com or via Twitter to both @rosstuckernfl and @sports_usa.

Are you for or against teams setting a curfew at the Super Bowl? Does the fact it is in New Orleans make a difference?

From @jtr2990724 via Twitter

I like the idea of having a late curfew the first night or two depending upon when a team arrives in order to allow the guys to enjoy the experience a little but by the time Tuesday night roles around I would dial it back to 11pm local time. The practice week in the NFL really starts on Wednesday so to me from Tuesday night going forward it should be all business. Plus an 11pm curfew still lets the guys go out to dinner and hang out together if that is what they want to do. As for New Orleans if anything it makes the teams even more cautious though there are temptations at any Super Bowl.

Where do you see Alex Smith next year?

From @MikeEWills via Twitter

Not in San Francisco, that's for sure. Reportedly he wants to be released after the Super Bowl which is not surprising as it would allow him to hit the market before free agency as well as choose where he gets to play. While the Niners will likely want to get something in return for him there are going to be some teams that believe they will release him due to his bloated 2013 salary. That said, every team needing a QB will look into him. Seems like the exact type of low-risk quarterback that Rex Ryan would want in New York.

Do the Patriots beat the Rams in the Super Bowl without Spygate?

From @kevin099us via Twitter

Impossible to know that for sure but remember that it was all about filming the defensive coordinator's hand signals and it is not like the Patriots offense was the story of that game.

Is Vernon Davis going to be a factor in the Super Bowl?

From @steveclout via Twitter

He better be. With the Pistol formation being so prominent and the Niners running the ball so well it really stresses the linebackers. That's where Davis comes in. When the Ravens linebackers like Ray Lewis and Dannell Ellerbe step up when Kaepernick shows run Davis should be open behind them.

Running QB's

Mon, 21 Jan 2013 08:00:00 GMT

Fad or the future?

That's the question that will be asked ad nauseam over the next two weeks leading up to the Super Bowl now that Colin Kaepernick and the Niners have made it to New Orleans. Kaepernick is the first so-called "running" QB, in the sense that his team calls a number of designed QB runs in every game, to lead his team to the Super Bowl. It's not just the question of the next two weeks; it's THE question of the offseason given the success that quarterbacks like Cam Newton, Robert Griffin III, and Russell Wilson had this year in addition to Kaepernick.

Is the "zone read" or "read option" as it is called going to continue to be a big part of the NFL moving forward or will it go the way of the wildcat and the run and shoot?

Count me among the wave of the future crowd. That's not to say there won't be a place for the Brady and Mannings of the world. Of course there will be. Always.

But I also think there will always be a place for the read option and pistol offenses with mobile signal callers that can throw. It just stresses the defense so much because of the threat that the quarterback can run. It's like the wildcat except the guy taking the shotgun snap can actually throw. It gives the offense a de facto extra blocker because the defense must account for him.

There's no doubt defenses will be better prepared and thus will defend it better next year but it is still simple math; defenses usually have one extra man than the offense when it comes to the running game which is why it is not easy to run the ball. With the read option that number count advantage goes away.

For example, the Falcons completely took away Colin Kaepernick's running threat throughout the NFC Championship game on Sunday by always having an overhang defender lurking outside on any play in which Kaepernick could pull the ball from the running back and take it himself. The good news for Atlanta is Kaepernick only had 21 yards rushing on 2 carries. The bad news is their strategy opened some huge holes for Frank Gore and LaMichael James to run through. In fact, two of the touchdowns came on plays in which Kaepernick could've run if the Falcons hadn't played it the way they did defensively.

That's why I don't think the question we should be asking is whether or not this offense can work going forward. It can. The real question is how long can these quarterbacks survive running the football between 3 to 10 times a game over the course of a season, let alone a career?

There have been a number of exciting young running threats at the quarterback position over the years like Michael Vick and Randall Cunningham but I can't think of any old ones.

Mobility has always been a valuable attribute at the position and guys like Fran Tarkenton, John Elway, Steve Young, and most recently Aaron Rodgers have used that to their advantage. They've never been asked to run the ball as often as the new crop is though.

I think a player can do this for 8-10 years but the key will be knowing "when to say when", meaning get out of bounds, slide, or in some other way avoid the job hazard that is high speed collisions when they elect to run. Out of the current group of young guns, or young legs as the case may be, Russell Wilson appears to do the best job of it right now.

I really think a quarterback can sustain his health running the ball 3 to 5 times per game as long as they can do that. Sounds easy enough but talking with these guys they will tell you that it is easier said than done. The reason? It goes against all of their natural instincts to make plays and get more yards, the way they have been playing every since Pop Warner ball. I mean, did you ever see a high school quarterback slide? Exactly.

Whether or not these quarterbacks can thrive with long careers in these new offenses will be almost entirely up to their ability to change their natural play-making urges to a new type of instinct: survival.

MAILBAG QUESTIONS: Send your questions either via email to ross@sportsusamedia.com or via Twitter to both @rosstuckernfl and @sports_usa.

Bills fan here. It's been extremely frustrating to see the Colts' success with Andrew Luck this year after having picked #1 off just one dreadful season after over a decade of success. Meanwhile my lousy squad wins 4-7 games every year and avoids picking near the top of the draft accordingly.

Here's my suggestion: use three year aggregate records to determine draft order instead. This would discouraging tanking (I appreciate that players and coaches don't do this, but this would discourage it at the organizational level too), allow the teams that have shown themselves to be worse over a larger sample an opportunity to pick higher on that basis, and allow improving teams a chance to continue to bolster their formerly poor squads with draft orders that take the preceding two years' poor performance into account.

Thoughts? Would love to hear how this isn't better than the current system. Love your work.

From Matt in New York via email

Very interesting outside the box idea Matt, just the way I like it. As a Bills fan I can certainly understand your frustration, especially when you consider that Peyton Manning's injury may end up being the best thing that ever happened to the Colts franchise. I don't think something like this would ever happen though because I don't think the NFL is worried about team's tanking it, your system would be too complicated for fans to really understand or comprehend, and you could always be the Kansas City Chiefs this year and have the #1 pick but no clear cut player to select with it.

Hey Ross, do you think an NFL player will ever come out of the closet?

From @Sprawlaholic via Twitter

Ever is a long time so I guess I'd say yes but I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future. The amount of scrutiny that player would face from fans and media alike would make it extremely difficult. Plus the level of vitriol he would receive from fans, opponents, and perhaps even some teammates if you can believe that would be such that I'd be surprised if someone would make the decision to willingly face all of that. Would take a special person.

Which is less likely? 2 QB sons winning Super Bowls (Mannings) or 2 coaching sons in the Super Bowl?

From @JustinGundy via Twitter

Both are incredible but I'd say two brothers coaching in the same Super Bowl takes the cake. I use to always joke that it is easier to be a Senator than a head coach because at least there are 100 Senators. To think that two of them could make it all the way to the Super Bowl, in the same year, is statistically very small.

College Try

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:00:00 GMT

When is it all about the money, except it isn't?

Evidently in college coaching based upon the actions of a handful of coaches that spurned several different NFL teams in order to go back to suddenly greener pastures on the college campus in which they reside. Chip Kelly, Bill O'Brien, Brian Kelly, and even Jim Mora turned down overtures from teams like the Philadelphia Eagles, Cleveland Browns, and San Diego Chargers in order to stay in school. Only Doug Marrone made the college to NFL leap by leaving his alma mater at Syracuse to take the head job with the Buffalo Bills.

The common refrain among media types and insiders is that it was all about the money for these guys; all they were doing by listening and in some cases interviewing with these teams was getting the leverage they needed to get either a bump in pay or a new contract altogether from their schools.

What if I told you these guys were actually foregoing a great deal of money and a better lifestyle in order to stay in college?

That's the reality though for all of these coaches. Pretty much every coach that I've ever spoken with that has coached at both levels, and I've talked to dozens, has told me that the NFL lifestyle is much better for them and their families.

The reason is recruiting. Recruiting has gotten to the point where it is 24/7/365 for the assistant coaches and, to a slightly lesser extent, the head coaches as well. Facebook, text messages, Skype chats, etc. It never ends for a college football coach. It never starts for an NFL coach.

Yes, the season is a grind at the professional level but with the expanded college schedules and the bowl games it is really not all that much worse. Plus the offseason for an NFL coach is much more nine to five-ish than people realize and they get an entire month off before training camp. College coaches, on the other hand, get very little time off.

And that is just the lifestyle. These coaches all turned down a great deal of financial security, despite the fact that they got raises or extensions in their current jobs. The reason is that not only would an NFL team offer them a lot of money to leave their college gig for a shot at the pros but the reality is they could always go back to college if things didn't work out in the NFL.

For whatever reason failure at the NFL level is not held against you at all in the college ranks and in fact just being a head coach at the NFL level only serves to increase your marketability to a college fan base. Think Nick Saban, Lane Kiffin, and Bobby Petrino, just to name a few.

That means not only would you get the huge NFL contract but pretty much no matter what happens you would be in line for another big college job at some point. Talk about a back-up plan!

It doesn't work the other way. Things start to head south at the college level and you run out of options quickly.

Of course, I am talking strictly from a business perspective here and there is always more to it. There is typically less media scrutiny at the college level. There is less competitive balance which means oftentimes you have built-in advantages that allow you to dominate and churn out winning seasons which end in bowl seasons.

Plus the head coach runs the whole show at the college level, which is typically not the case in the NFL. That may in fact be why so many of these candidates don't want to go to the Eagles. They're afraid they won't be allowed to run things the way they see fit. Being the big man on campus certainly has its benefits for a coach and his family as well.

So I can certainly understand why a college coach would want to turn down the NFL. I might do the same. But we can't say they just did it for the money when the reality is they are likely turning down a much longer and more secure financial future by staying put.

MAILBAG QUESTIONS: Send your questions either via email to ross@sportsusamedia.com or via Twitter to both @rosstuckernfl and @sports_usa.

It happens at the same place in my commute. You start blabbering about how unfair NFL players are treated because teams can unilaterally cut them -- leaving them out in the cold.

You complain about how one sided NFL contracts are written. You conjure up contempt for NFL owners and executive -- and heap sympathy on the players like they're survivors.

I seriously want to steer my car into oncoming traffic just to avoid the pain you impose on me and your handful of listeners with your nonsense.

Players don't have to sign the contracts, right? They can pursue other careers like most working Americans, right? Teams live up to their end of the contracts, right? They're not failing to pay the player, or avoiding the termination clauses, or any of that stuff, right?

Now, with your recent article eliciting pity for fired NFL coaches, you're beating a similar drum.

Be fair, Tucker. Coaches and players earn unthinkable money compared to most working Americans. The notoriety, the perks, the adulation is unfathomable to most of us.

And you want us to feel sorry for them? Really? Because they signed a contract they negotiated with the club? Because the club doesn't want them around anymore?

Please -- stop it.

From Rich in Fort Wayne via email

Appreciate the email Rich but I think perhaps you are just hearing what you want to hear. To be clear, I don't ask or think you or anybody else should feel sorry for NFL players or coaches. At all. They both knew what they were getting into when they chose this profession and signed those deals. You are 100% correct. Pretty much any time I bring up the fact that a player can be released at any time it is in reference to a player holding out, which I fully support. Usually a caller like yourself calls in to talk about how they should "honor" their contract. Please. If the NFL teams aren't going to honor the deals why should the players? There are fines and repercussions in place if the player elects to go that route. As for the coaches, I only wanted to make sure fans knew some of the other families involved while they were dancing in the streets celebrating the fact that their team's head coach got fired. Don't feel sorry for them but perhaps a measure of respect while you act like your team just won the Super Bowl?

Hi Ross,

Love everything you do. I have a question about the Skins offence. Did Kirk Cousin's performance on this year boost Kyle Shanahan's value as much as the backup QBs? It seems his offensive system and play-calling is really working. RG3 adds some treats, but we saw the original offense run under Cousins and it looked great. Could the Redskins find competition for Kyle Shanahan's services down the track?

Cheers!

From Dominic from Down Under via email

There has not been much of a buzz during the last week or so about Shanahan as a coaching candidate so my guess is his offense is going to have to put forth another stellar performance in 2013, whether the QB is Cousins or RG3, in order to be a hot name on the coaching carousel.

Doesn't the NFL have certain quality standards for the fields?

From @boxfortdiaries via Twitter

Supposedly they do but it certainly doesn't appear to be the case, does it? Whatever those standards are they appear to be pretty minimal, especially in light of the disastrous showing at FedEx Field in the Wildcard Round. Truth is, some teams purposely practice on the game fields and thus affect the playing conditions in order to gain a competitive advantage. I know New England did when I was there before switching to the field turf that is so common these days.

Business Decision

Tue, 08 Jan 2013 08:00:00 GMT

Dear NFL Draft Early Entry Candidate,

Congratulations on an outstanding college career! The fact that you are even in this position means you have worked very hard and had a tremendous amount of success on and off the field. Job well done.

But now may be the tough part. Should you enter your name into the NFL draft and leave school early?

As a guy that played in the league for a while and knows a thing or two about pro football I don't think the decision is very hard with one small caveat.

Go pro.

Your body is your business and it is a depreciating asset. Actually, deteriorating might be the better word. Pretty much any Wall Street investment firm or Fortune 500 business or insurance actuary would tell you that turning professional is the most prudent financial decision unless there is a strong likelihood that you can significantly improve your status as a prospect next year. The key words there are "strong" and "significantly" and that combination doesn't happen very often.

This is especially true given the new rookie wage scale in the NFL which drastically reduced the money given to the top picks and forbids any re-negotiations until after a player's third year in the league.

Unless that "strong" and "significant" combo is a distinct possibility there is really only one reason to stay in school and it is not education. Don't get me wrong, I value education and the things it can do for you in life. Highly, in fact. So highly that it is why I chose to play my college ball at Princeton. But education will always be there and you can finish up later.

The only real reason you should stay is if you value the college experience so highly that you are willing to risk your financial future. That could certainly be the case. Maybe you enjoy being the big man on campus and everything that comes along with that. Georgia quarterback Aaron Murray is in your shoes and he has decided to stay in school and thus will be the king of Athens for another year.

Perhaps you believe that the innocence is lost once you leave the comforts of those college surroundings and start earning a paycheck and working for a living. I think those are all compelling arguments and it is entirely possible that guys like Matt Leinart, Matt Barkley, and Montee Ball will look back on their decisions when they are 75 years old and talking with their grandkids and be so happy that they had that extra year of the college experience. I can see that.

All that said, if pro football is what you want to do and financial security is important to you and your family than you need to maximize your physical gifts, pronto.

No, money isn't everything (I didn't get into the football media or write letters/columns like this with the idea of making truckloads of money)but you need to know that your body is a ticking time bomb and you never know when it is going to go off. I didn't realize that when I was your age.

Mine went off my fourth year in the league when I had a pair of herniated discs in my back that required surgery. I was never the same player after that and I really wasn't all that great to begin with!

Fortunately for me I had signed a contract extension after my third year with the Buffalo Bills that enabled me to make more money that fourth year than my first three combined. That never would have happened had I redshirted (Ivy league doesn't do much of that) and spent an extra year in college like so many players do and like you are considering right now. That would have had a big impact on not only my life but the lives of my wife and children as well.

You see, every single workout in the weight room or play in practices and games brings with it not only a risk of injury but also greater wear and tear on your most precious asset; your body. Why put more miles on your engine without getting compensated for it? At least in the NFL you get reimbursed for that mileage.

Just ask former South Carolina running back Marcus Lattimore. The last two years have cost him millions of dollars that he will never get back and my guess is he wishes he could have turned pro after his dynamic freshman campaign.

That's one reason why I think his former teammate Jadeveon Clowney should be able to leave school now if he wanted. Same goes for guys like Marquise Lee at USC and Teddy Bridgewater at Louisville. Heck they all would probably be top 5 picks if they were allowed by the NFL to leave school after just two years.

Not to mention the league is designed in a way such that longevity and years of service really begin to compound from a benefits standpoint and allow you to really provide a great long-term existence for your family. It's hard not to think that another year in college doesn't have a good chance of taking one away from your NFL career on the backside.

I know your emotions are pulling you in different directions and who really knows how you will feel about this decision when your playing career is long gone? Maybe you will regret that you passed up a chance to have another year of the uniquely special college experience?

That certainly may be the case and if you go that route I totally understand. I just felt like you should know that the injury rate in the NFL is 100%, meaning everybody gets hurt at some point.

Depending upon when that is, what does the rest of your life look like?

MAILBAG QUESTIONS: Send your questions either via email to ross@sportsusamedia.com or via Twitter to both @rosstuckernfl and @sports_usa.

What is the blueprint of success for Doug Marrone in Buffalo?

From Ann Burke via Twitter

Continuity & quarterback play. Buffalo has been a revolving door with a new quarterback, head coach, and front office executive seemingly every year. In fairness however, they did give Chan Gailey and his chosen quarterback, Ryan Fitzpatrick, three years and there just wasn't enough progress shown for them to continue down that road.

What do you think about Carolina sticking with Ron Rivera?

From Greg via Twitter

Like it. The defense was vastly improved from a year ago and Cam Newton quietly was phenomenal down the stretch. Why not see if they can pick up next season where they left off this one? You can always fire him next year if it backfires.

What is the best position coming out in the draft this year?

From Ron Preston via Twitter

Everyone I have spoken with thus far tells me it is the big boys on both sides of the ball. The offensive and defensive linemen are said to be outstanding and plentiful so if your team needs to improve in those areas you are in luck.

Black Monday

Mon, 31 Dec 2012 17:33:00 GMT

This is the day that many of you have been waiting for. I suppose congratulations are in order. Before you start celebrating by dancing in the streets let me just give you one thing to think about.

No, I'm not referring to the fans of the teams that clinched a playoff berth on Sunday like the Redskins and Vikings. Instead this message is directed at those of you that are experiencing even more unbridled joy than that because at long last your head coach has been fired and so both you and the franchise you love so dearly get a fresh start.

Today is called "Black Monday" in the NFL because it is the day after the conclusion of the regular season and as such the day when most of the coaching and front office changes around the league take place. It has become a holiday of sorts for some fans when the long-awaited moves like the ones taking place with Andy Reid in Philadelphia and Norv Turner in San Diego finally go down.

I get it. Some of my best friends are diehard Eagles fans in Philadelphia and have been waiting for this for years. A GoBigRecruiting.com colleague of mine that lives in Chicago was actually happy the Bears didn't make the playoffs because that meant there was a better chance Lovie Smith would get canned and he just couldn't take the long-tenured mild mannered coach anymore. Their frustration stems from their passion and so today comes with a tremendous sense of relief for Eagles and Bears fans.

If you want to celebrate your coach's dismissal that's fine by me so long as you know there are a lot of lives being affected. Innocent lives that could be forever altered as a result. If you choose to take pleasure in the misfortune of others I can't stop you but I can try to humanize what is actually happening a little bit.

I'm not referring to the head coaches whose name will be in the headline of tomorrow's newspapers. You don't need to feel sorry for them. They get paid like CEO's and if their teams don't perform well enough in this bottom line business they likely belong in this exclusive club anymore anyway. Plus, it is very rare for a head coach to even enter the last year of his contract so almost all of them have some sort of golden parachute on their way out.

I'm asking that you take a moment to consider the other people involved. The ones whose names you've never even heard of. They're the ones that are really affected when moves like this are made.

"Nowadays an NFL team has between 18-22 coaches, not even including support staff like the equipment managers and trainers, " former NFL head coach Dick Vermeil told me on my SiriusXM NFL Radio show on Friday, "and many times the new head coach will fire every single one of them when he comes in. It creates a terribly insecure environment."

Plus a lot of them likely don't even deserve it. In a profession that is the ultimate meritocracy, or at least portends itself to be, assistant coaches often get fired through little fault of their own. The offensive line coach might be the best in the league. The assistant secondary coach may have gotten the young defensive backs on the roster to play well above their natural ability. Oftentimes it just doesn't matter.

Plus unlike the head coach who can likely go back to being a coordinator for someone and land on their feet if they are so inclined the assistants often have to scramble just to get a job in coaching somewhere, anywhere, just so their children can have health insurance.

Certainly these coaches knew about the transient nature of the profession when they got started but those who enlist in the military or become firefighters and cops are well aware of the risks when they sign up as well yet we have a tremendous amount of sympathy for them.

I'm not comparing what football coaches do to those who serve the common good and risk their physical well being but is having a tiny measure of respect and appreciation for what they are going through and not basking in their misfortune too much to ask?

I played for nine different head coaches during my seven NFL years which means I came into contact with over 100 different assistants. They are real people, for the most part good guys like me and you that are willing to work crazy hours and live a tenuous existence just because they love football that much. You can relate to that, right?

Then please try to show a little compassion while shouting with glee from the rooftops that the wicked witch, in this case your team's head coach, is finally dead.

MAILBAG QUESTIONS: Send your questions either via email to ross@sportsusamedia.com or via Twitter to both @rosstuckernfl and @sports_usa.

Do you think that the Pistol Offense is a fad or do you expect to continue to see it used more often?

From @Michael_RA via Twitter

I think both the Pistol offense and the zone read concepts being employed by teams like Redskins, Panthers, Niners, and Seahawks are here to stay. The Pistol has a tremendous design in that it allows the offense and the quarterback to have all of the advantages of being in the shotgun without all of the downside that comes along with the limitations in the running game. While I do think NFL defenses and coordinators will get better at defending it the zone read puts a tremendous amount of stress on the defense because of the bind that the defensive ends find themselves in and as such will likely be a part of some NFL offenses for years to come.

If the Raiders or the Rams moved back to LA would the fan base support them ? Must it be a new team?

From @ MaxSS427 via Twitter

I don't think it has to be a new team. In fact, it probably makes sense for it to be one of them since there is a history there and some semblance of a built in fan base already in place. I think both of them would be better candidates than the next most logical team, the Chargers, though my guess is the people in Los Angeles would support any team that comes and would even have an affinity already in place for the franchise from the south.

Stacked Box

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:04:00 GMT

Is there any chance that defenses are so focused on stopping Adrian Peterson that they have actually been helping him in his effort to not only become the 7th NFL player to surpass 2,000 rushing yards in a season but also break Eric Dickerson's single season record of 2,105?

The answer is yes if you ask Peterson and another future Hall of Fame back, my Wednesday Sirius XM NFL Radio co-host LaDainian Tomlinson.

I was surprised recently when Peterson joined us as a guest and he and Tomlinson spoke giddily about the opportunities that are presented by the eight and nine man fronts designed to stop the run that Tomlinson saw frequently and Peterson is facing weekly during his run for the record.

"You just make one cut and nobody is there," said Tomlinson.

It may sound counterintuitive but the idea is fairly simple; with so many defenders pressed up near the line of scrimmage the potential to break a big one is there. Consider the twenty-one runs over 20 yards that Peterson has had this year. Then look at the fact that he has had a 50+ yard run in six games this year. Six! He leads the league in both categories by a wide margin. Those are abnormal and a big reason why he still has a legitimate shot at the record despite a credible effort by the Houston Texans to hold him to just 86 yards on 25 carries on Sunday.

You very rarely get those types of big runs that Peterson has been racking up against a defense that has two safeties because those players are typically unblocked and are able to take an angle that allows them to get into a position to make a tackle with enough bodies around them that there isn't a tremendous amount of space, thus limiting the ball carrier's options. The stacked boxes that Peterson has been seeing actually help him break those big runs.

Sure, there might be more runs for little or no gain, which is obviously the idea of always having one more defender than the offense has blockers, but that can also lead unwittingly to those big runs. As an offensive lineman I never looked at it that way. We would just get frustrated as a result of every one of us coming back to the huddle and saying we got our man yet still we weren't gaining any yards.

"At times it can be frustrating because you know you are so close to a big one when that one guy makes the tackle," said Tomlinson, "but Marty (Schottenheimer) used to always say not to worry about the eighth man because we were going to run away from him anyway as the quarterback would check the play."

Because that safety is so close to the line of scrimmage they can at times get lost in the traffic with all of the big bodies and essentially block themselves on some plays.

So how would Tomlinson go about trying to slow down Peterson if he were the defensive coordinator for the Packers, a team that gave up 210 yards to him the last time these two teams met back in November?

"My plan would be to have a seven man front with both safeties within ten yards and as soon as they see the run they fill quickly from there so they don't get caught up in the wash", said Tomlinson.

"The idea is to not give up the big play."

The problem with that philosophy, however, is that the Packers aren't designing a defense to try to prevent Peterson from breaking the record. They are trying to win the game and secure a first round playoff bye. Whether or not those two are mutually exclusive is debatable.

The issue with Tomlinson's defense is that it would allow the Vikings to churn out five to eight yard gains all game long and control the clock even if it did ultimately prevent Peterson from breaking off any big runs and getting the record. That's not a philosophy the Packers can likely live with because it could lead to a slow death ... and a loss.

Instead, like most of the teams that have faced the Vikings during this torrid pace by Peterson they are more than likely going to put a safety into the defensive front in an effort to try to stifle the Vikings running game and force Minnesota quarterback Christian Ponder to beat them. While that could lead to victory it could also lead to a couple more long runs by Peterson and ultimately a record.

MAILBAG QUESTIONS: Send your questions either via email to ross@sportsusamedia.com or via Twitter to both @rosstuckernfl and @sports_usa.

Why do some running backs disappear without a trace just a season after
they were very dominant? What has happened to running backs like Peyton
Hillis, Jerome Harrison, LeGarrette Blount? They seem to have left the
scene even faster than they emerged on it. How can one player go from
being such a force in the run game to suddenly being a barely
serviceable backup? To my knowledge it is not injury-related

Are we going to see the same thing with Doug Martin, Stevan Ridley and
Alfred Morris next year?

Jeppe via Email

It is a great question and I'm not sure I have a very good answer but it is usually a matter of situation and circumstance. For example, the year after Hillis had a big season he got locked into a contract dispute and it affected his play. Blount had trouble holding onto the ball his second year and ran into less than favorable fronts as a result of the struggles of Josh Freeman. Harrison really just surprised people with a couple of big games.

How hard is it for linemen to master a run game as diverse as the 49ers?

@EliFitch via Twitter

Not as hard as you might think. Most of the different things you see in the running game revolve around the backfield action. Fakes, reads, etc. They don't have any impact on the line. In fact, linemen typically don't even know what is going on behind them as they are solely focused on the defense and their responsibilities. There are really only so many blocking schemes out there so I don't think it is an additional stress on the Niners line.

Who do you think is the best potential HC candidates out of the current crop of active co-ordinators?

@UScotGraeme via Twitter

Well I am a big fan of Mike Zimmer and think he is long overdue for an opportunity. He was the defensive coordinator in Dallas when I played there and I was really impressed with how he carried himself and how the players respected him. I also think offensive coordinator Mike McCoy of the Broncos will get a chance while Patriots offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels and Falcons defensive coordinator Mike Nolan both are worthy of a second look.

Quitters

Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:12:00 GMT

So showdown Sunday became blowout Sunday in the NFL for the most part in Week 15 and many fans are starting to wonder whether or not their team has quit. Well the answer is absolutely not ... at least not on the field.

It is extremely rare in my experience for a player to actually quit or give up on the field. They're just not wired that way and you really can't play football like that. If anything, maybe there are some defensive linemen that won't go all out on every single snap late in a game that has already been decided but that happens all the time anyway because of the amount of physical exertion that position requires and the "take a play off" nature of some defensive linemen.

In fact, I have been on some bad teams that were pretty much just playing out the string the last couple of games down the stretch and I can't ever recall seeing a teammate on film clearly loafing. That person would stick out like a sore thumb and lose the respect of all of the guys in the locker room for not playing hard inside the white lines. Plus it is just unnatural.

But I have seen guys quit. I've seen them give up on the season. It just doesn't happen on Sunday.

The "quit", if it happens at all, is much more subtle than that and it takes place during the week leading up to the game.

It might be a guy deciding not to go into the cold tub after practice the last week or two of the season.

It might be a guy not coming in on a Tuesday, the players normal off day, to get a workout in and watch extra film of the upcoming opponent even though he had done so all season.

Sometimes players that have a routine of catching footballs or working on their footwork or conditioning post practice will cut that out late in the year.

I've seen all that happen at different times in my NFL career. Not often, but it happens.

Maybe it is just a smart decision on the part of those players to cut back a bit since the season is a grind. Maybe it was a conscious decision on their part or a suggestion from some trainer they know. That's all possible but I doubt it.

And maybe I had the wrong idea but I was always the exact opposite. I'd grind even more in those situations in order to make sure I finished strong.

If things were going that badly that the team I was on was already out of it there were sure to be a number of changes after the season and I didn't want to be one of them. And if I was, I wanted my game film from late in the season to be good enough that somebody else would sign me.

The preparation during the week is what means the most for Sundays in the NFL. That is the part that players can actually control. Once the ball is kicked and you are inside the white lines there is nothing you can really do besides letting your natural instincts kick in. You either put in the time and are ready to go both mentally and physically or you didn't. There's nowhere to hide at that point.

Unfortunately when the season is a lost cause some guys will let that preparation slip during the week. There is a place to hide, so to speak, Monday thru Friday.

So yeah, some of the guys on your favorite team may have thrown in the towel but you have a better chance identifying that thru mental errors and missed assignments as a result of lack of preparation during the week than you will in their physical effort on Sunday. What you're looking for may indeed be there, you just have to look a little harder.

When watching a game, I always gravitated towards just looking at the football and whoever has it. But is that really the best way to see the game? Should my eyes be directed at the lines, linebackers or secondary? Should they stay there throughout each game or is it more based on matchups?

Nick via email

Excellent question and it is all about personal preference Nick. I typically watch the line play for the first second to get a sense of what they are trying to do and who is getting off the ball first and winning the battle at the line of scrimmage and then find the football. If you don't really know what you are looking at in that regard you are probably better off just looking at the ball the whole time but there are literally dozens of ways to watch a game if you really wanted to. You could even just watch one individual match-up every play. That's what makes it great.

Why don't football players wear jocks? Saw a Steeler DB limp off the field after landing square on his ...

@LurieLurie via Twitter

Some wear jock straps, some don't. Many elect to just where compression shorts and that is what I always did. In terms of cups, that is extremely rare. Lots of guys think they are cumbersome and don't really do much to protect what they are designed to protect in the first place.

Which states have the best high school football programs?

@cpadick via Twitter

You've come to the right place as a I am a high school football junkie. In fact, I actually have a service, Go Big Recruiting.com, devoted to helping student-athletes get the opportunity to play sports in college. Based on the videos I see there and the composition of Division I and NFL rosters there is no disputing that Florida, Texas, and California, in some order, are the three best states for high school football talent. Part of that has to do with population, part of it has to do with the weather, but you can't dispute the talent produced in those states. New Jersey, Ohio, Georgia, and Pennsylvania are probably the next best talent producing states.