You guys send in questions. Some are very good. Some are just rants directed at me for reasons I can't understand. Got one this week that just said, "Your a moron," which I thought was really funny. But like I said, a lot of the questions are good, and as such I like to take a little time and try and answer them. Thus is born the weekend mailbag.
Mike in Washington, D.C. wants to know where the Cowboys stand with linebacker Keith Brooking, given their obvious willingness this offseason to cut ties with veteran players who cost a lot of money and aren't what they used to be.
Dan Graziano: After Saturday's cuts, the Cowboys are left with only three active inside linebackers -- Brooking, Bradie James and Sean Lee. So a big part of the reason Brooking is still around is clearly because they don't feel they've replaced him yet, the way they did Andre Gurode or Leonard Davis or Marion Barber or I guess Roy Williams with younger guys. Even if Lee is ready to replace Brooking as a starter, they'd still need Brooking on the team as a backup at that position with Bruce Carter still injured. I wouldn't feel super-comfortable right now if I were Brooking, given the current climate, but for now he does not appear to be one of the veterans for which they feel they have an adequate replacement.
Bill in Gainesville, Fla., tells me I am wrong to think that John Beck is still the favorite to be the Redskins' starting quarterback. Bill thinks that the reason Rex Grossman rested Thursday and Beck played in the final preseason game is because the decision has already been made to go with Grossman, who he says is "more of a pure passer and has a better arm."
DG: Well, we'll see soon enough, won't we? But I don't think Grossman resting and Beck playing Thursday had anything to do with it. Remember, Grossman played and Beck didn't play in the Redskins' first preseason game because Beck had a groin injury, so they could have just been evening out the playing time. As I've said all along, they know what they have in Grossman and believe Beck offers more upside. They wanted to use the preseason to see if Beck could handle the pressure of the opportunity. What they decide about the way he did that will factor into the decision more than anything, and I believe Beck probably showed enough. But like I said, we'll know by this time next week.
Chris in Staten Island wants to know if the Giants would be smart to trade Osi Umenyiora for disgruntled Chicago Bears linebacker Lance Briggs.
DG: First, I'm going to say I don't think it's something that would interest the Giants. Remember, they don't want to trade Umenyiora just because he's unhappy. They believe he has more value to them as a player on the field this season than as a trade chip. They don't think his contract demand is reasonable, and at no point during the whole thing have they been inclined to solve a problem he created by simply giving him what he wants. They also value great pass-rushing defensive ends over linebackers, as the current construction of their roster indicates. I believe, given that they run a 4-3 defense, they're correct in doing this and that once Umenyiora is back healthy, he'll be of greater use to them than would a linebacker such as Briggs. I believe they're shaky at linebacker, but they kept four rookies as backups and seem determined to see what those guys have. As a result, if a starter goes down this season, they could struggle. But it's clear they don't prioritize the linebacker position, and so I don't think you'll see them make a major move to address it.
Larry from Philly but living in N.Y. thinks Michael Vick will retain his financial motivation to keep playing well even after getting his new contract, since his bankruptcy issues drop his take-home pay to about 11 percent of his salary. Larry isn't just pulling that figure out of thin air. He read it in a story Darren Rovell did on cnbc.com.
DG: Well, there's also Vick's endorsement money to consider, and I think the figures overall indicate that, if he were inclined to get complacent, he could financially afford to do so. But I'm not saying I expect him to do that. I see Vick as a guy who's been through a lot and understands the ways in which he needs to play and work and conduct himself in order to have success commensurate with his own expectations for himself. The question I have is whether he sees himself as a quarterback dedicated to honing his craft, or if he'll be content to lean on his tremendous athletic ability to carry him in tough spots. He's clearly established himself, in a short time in Philadelphia, as a very good player and leader. But the harder he works at improving as a quarterback, the better he and the Eagles will be in the long term. That, in my opinion, is the big question remaining with Vick -- not whether he retains sufficient financial motivation to play hard.
Keep em coming, folks. Mailbag out.