ESPN NFL

Posted by ESPN.com's Kevin Seifert

You didn't forget, did you? Friday is preseason mailbag day here in the NFC North. You ask, I answer ... or, at least, I comment. Let's get to it.

Chris from Houston writes: Kevin, Is there even a remote chance that My Vikings will get Favre? If Favre puts in his reinstatment papers and the Pack trade him to another franchise, what is the likely hood that the team that the pack trade him to will turn around and trade him to the Vikings ???

Kevin Seifert: Only the most remote of chances. The Packers don't want Favre in Minnesota and I can only assume that they will need reassurance from any trade partner that he won't be shipped to the Vikings later. Also, the tampering charges against the Vikings make it awfully, awfully difficult to pursue him from an appearance standpoint.

Paul of St. Paul writes: Personally I'm tired of players holding out when they are signed already. Just because you have one or two good years, doesn't mean that you're going to have four good years. Whatever happened to agreements...especially signed ones?

Kevin Seifert: Paul, it's true that players sign contracts that lock them up for a certain amount of time. But it's also a standard part of NFL business to re-evaluate contracts if the player performs far beyond expectations. I assume you're referring to the Bears' Devin Hester, whose holdout ended Friday. He was a second-round pick and signed a standard rookie contract. During his first two seasons, he proved to be an exceptional player. Even the Bears recognize that he should be paid more money, but there is clearly a difference of opinion on how much. A holdout is a last resort for players who think they need to apply additional pressure the team wouldn't feel if they were in camp. In Hester's case, it was short-lived.

Mychal of Spokane writes: I read that Hester wants 6yr/45million. Dont you think thats way to much for a return man? Even though if he keeps it up, he'd be worth every penny.

Kevin Seifert: I'm not sure if that's the number, but yes, that would be an astounding total for a return man. Trouble is, the Bears want to convert him into a full-time receiver. If he makes that transition smoothly and becomes a consistent big-play threat on offense, that contract wouldn't look so bad.

Jim C. writes: Kevin, Will Brad Childress make a conscious effort to pass the ball more often to A.D. and will Bernard Berrian really stretch the field and make defenses pay for playing 8 & 9 man fronts? Thanks....

Kevin Seifert: Jim, I don't see a dramatic uptick in passes to Peterson unless he is in the game on third down, which might not be likely. I do think Berrian will stretch the field better than any Vikings receiver since Randy Moss. Berrian is no Moss, of course, but if you leave him in single coverage, he will beat you more often than not over time.

Erin of Seattle writes: Well, now that the cell phone issue is resolved, does this mean my conspiracy theory is lessened: Did the Packers ask Brett Favre to call the Vikings as part of "the deal" to let him go? I mean, why is it that only the Vikings are accused? Either Favre himself needs to share some of the tampering blame or the Packers must be investigated, too, for their involvement. Because Favre is still a Packer, right? So, shouldn't the Packers accept responsibility for his actions? And if his actions are setting up another team, a rival no less, for punishment, then it must be asked whether or not the Packers had a hand in this. Yeah, I know, unlikely, but as low as the rivalry has stooped, I wouldn't dismiss the idea completely.

Kevin Seifert: I wouldn't say the cell phone issue is resolved, Erin. You have one report saying that Favre used a Packers-issued cell phone and you have one report that says he didn't. The best way to put it is that the truth has yet to become clear. I always like conspiracy theories and yours is interesting, but I can't see the Packers setting up the Vikings in that way. (As fun of a story as that would be to report.)

Rod writes: VALIDATION/CREDIBILITY Kevin: does ESPN ever throughly checkout information before reporting it as fact. AFter it was reported by packernews.com the story about the Favre cell phone was erroneous it took over 24 hours before you posted that the story was incorrect. ESPN has a history of reporting stories without any prior research. I ask WHY? Your reputation is laughable and it appears ESPN doesn't give a damn. I'm fed up with this false network and internet post. You are all just "ambulance chasing" journalist; no you're not journalist. My appologies to journalist. Regards, PUKING

Kevin Seifert: Thanks for the kind words, Rod. I can't speak globally about ESPN, but in terms of this blog we linked to reports in credible news organizations. These were not random rumors floating about. Frankly, I don't know that we can say the issue has been resolved one way or the other. As for validation, you make a decent point. Part of my role on this blog is to determine whether other media reports are credible enough to pass along. In my judgment, both of these reports were.

Noe of Ft. Worth, Texas, writes: If the Packers did not issue Favre a team cell phone, then what phone records do they have to prove he had conversations with Vikings coaches? And how would they have access to those records?

Kevin Seifert: Noe, those are very good questions that a lot of people are asking. It's part of the reason why there is some credibility to the cell phone report. If the Packers truly have evidence of phone conversations, what else could it be besides phone records? And if they have phone records, how did they get them without having ownership of the phone line? These are good questions to which I don't have the answers.

Jim of Canton writes: Will the Favre controversy hurt the Packers this year in wins and losses?

Kevin Seifert: Not if it gets resolved relatively quickly. If this thing extends well into training camp, it's going to wear on everybody.

Kevin of St. Paul writes: How much longer is the Vikings window going to be open with Pat Williams. After all, Mr. Williams is a big man that if I remember correctly is close to retirement age?

Kevin Seifert: Pat will be 35 this season but he's in great shape by all reports. I think he'll play at least two more years.

Onsi writes: Hey Kevin, I was just wondering about the Vikings. They have 2 great running backs, and Bernard Berrian should help the receiving core, while The defense looks to be one of the best in the NFL But do you think these guys are contenders, or slightly below until their quarterback situation is solved? They almost look like the Baltimore Ravens of a few years back, with a dominant run game and stout defense.

Kevin Seifert: Interesting comparison. I'd say the Vikings defense won't be as dominant as the Ravens of 2000 but their offense will be more dynamic.

T. of Vienna, Va., writes: Redskins at 23? Behind Ravens? Behind Bengals? Behind Panthers? I see you also gave the highest ranking of anyone to the Lions... covering the NFC North requires that level of optimism I suppose. And very little love for the whole NFC East... hmmm

Kevin Seifert: T., I just think it's going to take some time for Jim Zorn to make the adjustment to being a head coach. Zorn could turn out to be a surprise, but for now there's nothing on his resume to suggest he will be a good head coach right away. As for the Lions, while I did rank them higher than anyone else, keep in mind it was still No. 24
out of 32 teams.

Jeremy writes: As unpredictable as the Detroit Lions have proved to be, what are reasonable expectations for this year? With Favre out of the picture (for now), Kitna stands to be the most talented QB in the division. Also, Kitna should have more leeway with a "balanced offense".

Kevin Seifert: Well, Jon Kitna is the most experienced quarterback. Don't know if he is the most talented, even with Favre gone. That said, I think it's reasonable to think the Lions can be a .500 team. I like their decision to move to a more balanced offense.

Minnisota writes: Can Adrian Peterson really achieve a 2000 yard season with Tavaris Jackson at Quaterback?

Kevin Seifert: Peterson has got a chance if he plays in all 16 games.

Tyson Mitchell of South Dakota writes: Do you think Gregg Jennings will have a breakout year and make the pro bowl?

Kevin Seifert: I think he has Pro Bowl talent but the Packers aren't going to throw the ball as much this year, making it harder for guys like Jennings to get numbers.

Jesse of Duluth, Minn., writes: Hey Kevin, do you know if the Vikes are going to run a freakin' split back set this year? And what's the word on the new fullback? See, these are the things I want to hear about. If I read one more piece on ESPN about T. Jack being the only thing that's holding the Vikings back, or AD being amazing but injury prone, I might just fill my pockets with rocks and walk into Lake Superior.

Kevin Seifert: Tarvaris Jackson is the only thing that's holding the Vikings back. Adrian Peterson is amazing but injury-prone. ... JUST KIDDING. Stay away from Lake Superior. Seriously, if by "split backfield" you mean Peterson and Chester Taylor together, I wouldn't count on it. I think Brad Childress is more concerned with keeping both guys fresh than getting them on the field at the same time. As for fullback Thomas Tapeh, he can be a beast -- especially as a receiver -- if he can stay healthy. He had some injury problems early in his career at Philadelphia.

Jarred of Boston writes: Admittedly, I am bias as Vikings fan. However, how is Aaron Rodgers perceived as being so much better than Tarvaris Jackson that the Packers are considered the favorites in division solely because of the Vikings QB situation (as implied in the recent chat)? Rodgers has started 0 games. Cal quarterbacks are notorious busts. And don't give me the learning from under Brett Favre argument. Not only is Favre not the smartest QB in the league but he has said in the past he couldn't care less about training Rodgers. Plus, backing up great QBs has done nothing for Sorgi or Cassel. And don't throw up the "he looked good in the Cowboys game" argument. There are literally hundreds of examples of horrible QBs shining for brief spots in relief duty. So where is the difference between the QBs? Jackson has more experience and his WR corps isn't THAT much worse. I just don't understand. If you believe the Packers will win the division, that's fine. But you can't honestly pin it on Rodgers being better than Jackson when Rodgers has never played.

Kevin Seifert: Jarred, fair points. Sometimes quarterbacks are judged too much on their potential.

St. Paul writes: In the power rankings, how are the Vikings ranked below the Packers, assuming Favre doesn't return. They have even greater uncertainty at quarterback the Minny does with Tarvaris, Rodgers has never played an entire game or started one and if you look at Jeff Tedford coached QB's they have traditionally struggled in the NFL. The Vikings have far superior runnning game. You could maybe make the case for the Packs defense being better, which i don't believe it is, but if you do its not that much better to catapult the Pack over the Vikings. Do you not agree? I think people are far to over confident in Aaron Rodgers and Ryan Grant is highly unproven and had a huge second half after Favre was throwing all over the place during the first 6 or 7 games, Hell AD would have had 2,500 yds in that offense. Your thoughts?

Kevin Seifert: It's fair to point out the Jackson-Rodgers angle. But I think you're overlooking the challenge the Vikings have to assimilate all their new faces. They have a lot of talent, but can they get on the same page and play together? That remains to be seen.

 Brent of Hammond, Wis.: Kevin, Who do you think will come out of training camp as the Vikings #2 cornerback? I'm hoping McCauley is the #2 with Gordon as the Nickel and Griffen as the Dime.

Kevin Seifert: Griffin is pretty locked in as the No. 2 corner. If I had to guess, Gordon will be the nickel. McCauley is going to have a pretty good camp to show earn that role. He disappointed some people last year and got demoted midway through the season.

Kyle in Denver writes: Kevin - You stated "Their (Bears) defense can be good but it doesn't look as dominant as the one that carried the Bears to the Super Bowl two years ago." in a response to a question today (7/18). Not to "nit-pick" but the defense they will put on the field this year will essentially be identical to what was on the field 2 years ago when they were semi-healthy. I'd go out on a "limb" and say - if this defense can stay healty through the season it'll be more dominate than the 2006 squad with the healthy addition of Dusty and Mike Brown with a Tommy Harris more-determined-than-ever.

Kevin Seifert: Remember, they're all two years older, too.

Brad of Lake Mills, Wis. writes: Kevin, can you guess what the fallout of the Johnny Jolly situation might be? Any game suspensions? Jolly is an active D-Lineman who was counted on to fill Corey Williams' void. If he doesn't miss time with suspension, is his shoulder %100? Thanks.

Kevin Seifert: A suspension is not out of the question at all.

Dan of Buffalo Grove, Ill., writes: Kevin, do the Bears need to play Hester at all 5 star offensive positions (qb, rb, fb, wrx2) for them to have a shot at the SB?

Kevin Seifert: They might want to use him at tight end as well.

Henry of Trenton, Fla., writes: With the Bears' question marks at WR I think that if they used more two TE sets they could play to Orton's strengths. With Clark and Olsen's abilities I think they can stretch the field and get more favorable matchups. What do you think?

Kevin Seifert: I think they'd be crazy not to. Clark and Olsen are their two best receivers.