Print and Go Back ESPN.com: NFC East [Print without images]

Monday, February 1, 2010
What's in Mosley's Mailbag?

By Dan Graziano
ESPN.com

I know that many of you are fired up following the NFC East's dominant performance in the Pro Bowl on Sunday, so let's get right to your questions.

Zach R. from Fayetteville, Ark., wants to spice up the Pro Bowl: Basically my idea is that we scrap the whole NFC vs. AFC and have true all-star teams. After all the Pro Bowlers are selected, the two coaching staffs that are in place for the game get to basically have a draft to determine the teams that will play in the event. It would give the fans a chance to see mixtures of players never thought possible! How awesome would it be if Tony Romo was throwing bombs to Andre Johnson or Peyton Manning handing it off to Adrian Peterson? And the fact that the mixture of players on each team would change each year would make each year's Pro Bowl unique. I just thought I would throw the idea out there and see what you think.

Mosley: Zach, thanks for putting so much thought into salvaging the worst of the four "major" all-star games. I would vote to scrap the entire concept of a Pro Bowl. There's at least some interest in the baseball and basketball all-star games because they happen during the regular season. By the time the Pro Bowl arrives each season, we don't really have much of an appetite for an all-star game (yes, I know the ratings were good for us). And moving the game to the weekend before the Super Bowl only seemed to encourage more cancellations from players. I sort of like your suggestion about mixing up AFC and NFC players, though. It would certainly spice things up to have the coaches from both sides participate in a draft. It would also give us another announcement show for TV.


Glenn from Hanover, Pa., has a question about Donovan McNabb and Michael Vick: Matt, what do you think of the probabilty of the following scenario in Philly: Eagles trade McNabb and Vick this year for draft picks. Kevin Kolb is the starter in 2010 and Jeff Garcia is brought in to be the veteran backup. That's the plan that makes the most sense to me. And a little known stat: Kolb is the only QB in NFL history to throw for over 300 yards in his first two NFL starts. He can move the offense and I believe he is more of a typical West Coast QB than McNabb .

Mosley: I think there's a better chance of the Eagles moving Vick than McNabb at this point. They don't want to pay Vick $5 million in 2010 to be a Wildcat quarterback. If the Eagles can land a third or fourth-rounder for Vick, they'd have to feel pretty good about things. If no one wants to trade for Vick, then you have a decision to make. I think the Eagles will demand a first-rounder for McNabb. So will they eventually settle for a second-round pick from either the Cardinals or the Favre-less Vikings? That remains to be seen. At this point, I think there's a 70 percent chance McNabb plays quarterback for the Eagles in 2010.


Champ from D.C. also has a McNabb question: Mosley, respect your work very much, so just one important question. You often indicate that you see Mcnabb somewhere other than Philly in 2010. I don't know about you but this makes no sense for one completely obvious reason. Who is going to replace him? Kevin Kolb threw six interceptions in two games. Meanwhile, Mcnabb is top three all-time in touchdown-to-INT ratio. There aren't any better options on the market. With all the pieces in place (on the offensive side, anyway), why do you think Andy Reid would do something stupid like let Mcnabb walk away? You can't leave the most important position on a team to an unkown during a time like this. Bottom line: Mcnabb is the best option we have, and letting him walk away now (he sitll has a few years in him) isn't the Eagles style. They'll wait 'til his play declines to not renew his contract and let him walk away (see also: Dawkins, Brian/Douglas, Hugh/Trotter, Jeremiah/Sheppard, Lito).

Mosley: First off, Kolb threw only three interceptions in his two starts in '09 and they all came in one game against the Saints. He actually put up solid numbers in a loss to the Saints and a win over the Chiefs. That's not enough to make the Eagles think that Kolb could take over and basically pick up where McNabb left off, but it's certainly a positive sign. And it's not like the Eagles are simply going to let McNabb "walk away." They'll only trade him if they can find a team willing to send them a high draft pick. Both McNabb and Kolb are entering the final year of their contracts. You don't want McNabb as a lame-duck quarterback. It just doesn't make sense. That's why it wouldn't completely surprise me if the Eagles ended up dealing him.


Dave from somwhere in Texas has a Redskins question: Matt, you have been vocal about the Redskins' Jason Campbell needing a change of scenery. How about Campbell going to the Cardinals for Matt Leinart? Jason is a pretty good pocket passer and Leinart is a better quarterback in play action, making him a good fit with Shanahan.

Mosley: I don't think that would be a wise move by the Redskins. Campbell put up decent numbers during a season in which the Skins may have had the worst offensive line in the league. Leinart's failed to live up to his first-round pedigree and I wouldn't give up a proven player such as Campbell for a guy who hasn't accomplished anything in the league. Let's remember that it was Leinart being a bust that cleared the way for Warner to cement his future Hall of Fame status. (And yes, I think he'll eventually get in the HOF, although not on the first ballot.)


Jason from Bryn Mawr, Pa., is concerned about Asante Samuel: Matt, although I thought Brian Baldinger was horrible as an in-game analyst, he does a very nice job breaking down game film and presenting his findings on weekly radio shows. I heard him on with Ray Didinger last week discussing the Eagles defensive woes. Surprisingly, he mentioned that the Eagles will need to take action with Asante Samuel, because he plays the game to suit his own purposes and not the teams. Very interesting. There is no doubt Samuels is a top cornerback in the league, but Baldinger's point was that when you watch the film of all the games, Samuel constantly puts the team in bad situations due to his route jumping to pad his INTs. Sure, he may have nine INTs, but he makes 30 to 40 plays that hurt the team.

Mosley: Jason, I think it's a fair point by Baldinger. And you saw Samuel try to jump a route in last night's Pro Bowl game and get beat on a deep ball. His knack for reading the quarterback is a pretty remarkable but his reluctance to make tackles is what frustrates a lot of Eagles fans. You saw him early in the Pro Bowl game allow some nice gains on the screen because he wanted no part of the tackle. Just a very soft player when it comes to making tackles. But when you make nine interceptions, you have a little more leeway in the toughness category. I do think the Eagles would be wise to draft another cornerback in the first round. With Sheldon Brown staggered by injuries and Samuel's refusal to tackle, you have plenty of room for improvement. I would argue that drafting a cornerback is more important than selecting a safety for the Eagles.


Anton from Montreal has a question about Flozell Adams: Hey Matt, do you think Flozell Adams, because of his strengh, could move over to the right side and let Doug Free, who is more of a finesse player, play on the left side of the o-line? I was very frustrated with colombo this season and thought Free and Adams both outplayed him.

Mosley: I don't see that happening, Anton. Adams has played left tackle for many years now, so he'd be reluctant to make the switch. And Colombo was playing pretty well before his leg injury knocked him out for seven games. I think he'll come back strong in 2010, so there's really no need to move Adams to the right side.


Matt from Charlotte, N.C., wants to discuss the draft from a Giants perspective: Love the blog, Matt. Thank you for making my workday that much less productive. Kiper had the Giants going with Carlos Dunlap with the No. 15 pick in his first mock draft. I know a lot will change by the time of the draft but am I the only one that thinks this is crazy? The Giants have a glaring need at ILB and Safety, and I could see them going OL or DT if there are any studs out there but DE? Kiwi was unhappy this year being a backup and rightfully so as he'd be a starter on most teams. I understand it was a bad pass rush this year but with two former Pro Bowlers and Kiwi, why would the Giants even consider a DE in the first three rounds?

Mosley: Matt, thanks for making us a part of your non-productivity. I don't think you can ever have enough pressure players, so I wouldn't have any problem with the Giants taking Dunlap at No. 15. But I think it's more likely that the Giants will take someone such as safety Taylor Mays. He's a big guy (6-3, 230) who has the chance to be an intimidating player. I'm told that Mays didn't have a great week at the Senior Bowl, but teams loved the fact that he showed up to compete. The Giants aren't going to start drafting based on need because it doesn't go along with their philosophy. But if the best player on the board happens to match up with their biggest need, there you go. I think Mays is a player they really like. But I also think offensive lineman Mike Iupati out of Idaho is someone who intrigues general manager Jerry Reese.