ESPN NFL

Posted by ESPN.com’s Kevin Seifert

We’ve got a light weekend schedule here in the NFC North, where Chicago and Green Bay are enjoying their bye. I haven’t gone back and counted words, but I still feel like we talked more Packers this week than any other team. "Monday Night Football" games tend to bring that out in people.

We’ll get back to normal by focusing Sunday on Minnesota’s game at St. Louis. (SARCASM ALERT.) If you want to share your own sarcasm, or your thoughts and questions, feel free to hit the mailbag. Our Facebook page remains fully operational, as does our Twitter feed.

Now, on to your comments.

DB of Edwardsville, Ill., notes Thursday’s post on Detroit’s pending linebacker shakeup and writes: Isn't it possible that all three current Lions linebackers will continue to start in addition to DeAndre Levy? Haven't the Lions been working Julian Peterson at DE in practice also? They could be starting him at end and putting Levy behind him at OLB. Just a thought.

Kevin Seifert: You’re right, DB. Peterson actually played some at defensive end last weekend at Chicago. And given Dewayne White’s health status, the Lions are a bit thin at defensive end. I can’t say for sure that your scenario won’t happen.

But I’ll also say that I don’t like the thought of Peterson being anything other than a change-of-pace defensive end. The Lions list him at 240 pounds. That would have been light on last year’s Lions team, which emphasized speed over weight. Coach Jim Schwartz has reversed those priorities, and that’s why the Lions signed players like Grady Jackson and asked everyone else to gain weight in the offseason.

I don’t see how Peterson holds up as a defensive end, except in obvious passing situations where he can try to run around offensive tackles.

You have to wonder how much Peterson has left. To this point, he’s been awfully quiet in the Lions’ scheme. I wonder if Levy won’t replace him in the starting lineup. Ernie Sims seems too young for the Lions to bench him.

---

Stacy of Tampa writes: Offensive linemen are called for false starts for the slightest flinch after getting into a three-point stance. Yet, I have also seen them basically move their head and whole torso to turn and hear QB audibling in loud crowd WITHOUT penalty. They stay in three-point stance, but there is clearly more movement than the little flinches that often draw flag. Why is this?

Kevin Seifert: That’s a popular question. Here’s what the NFL rulebook states about false starts:

From the start of the neutral zone until the snap, no offensive player, if he assumed a set position, shall charge or move in such a way as to simulate the start of a play (false start).

The way I understand it, players aren’t prohibited from moving once they get in their three-pint stance. They can’t “simulate the snap” by flinching or otherwise taking a step toward the line of scrimmage. But they can twist their head if they’re obviously trying to hear the snap count or line calls. That’s not simulating the start of the play. Hope that helps.

---

Travis of Minneapolis writes: I've been seeing reports that a congressional subcommittee is going to be looking into the Williams Wall suspensions. What effect is this likely to have? I would think that the only way Congress could affect the status of the suspensions is by passing a law; until that point it's still a matter for the courts. Is that correct?

Kevin Seifert: In essence, you’re right. I can’t pretend to have a deep knowledge of how this legal machination would work, but I can refer you to this story from the New York Times. Here’s a key excerpt: “Among the options that the NFL and the other leagues have is … asking Congress to pass legislation that would allow their collective bargaining agreements, which include their drug-testing programs, to trump state laws.”

What motivation would Congress have to intervene? Ostensibly, to prevent a weakening of national drug testing policies in professional sports and also with U.S. Olympic athletes. Some states have more relaxed testing and penalty requirements than the individual leagues. If Kevin Williams and Pat Williams win their case, each league would have to rewrite their policies to accommodate individual state laws.

Otherwise, athletes who work in some states would have more protection than those who live in others.

---

AC of St. Paul writes: What's up with B.J. Raji? Is he still bothered by that ankle? Also, why is he at DE and not DT? I know Green Bay wants Ryan Pickett on the field, but Raji seems out of place and too slow for DE.

Kevin Seifert: It’s been more than a month since Raji first sprained his ankle, although he did have one practice setback a couple weeks ago. Regardless, I don’t know if we can blame his lack of production (five tackles, no sacks) on the ankle.

More likely, what we’re seeing is a rookie player adjusting to life in the NFL slower than we had hoped. This is often the case when a player holds out in training camp. He’s also learning a new position as a 3-4 defensive end after spending his college career as a 4-3 defensive tackle.

The original plan was for Raji to start at left end with Pickett at nose tackle. The holdout, and the emergence of Johnny Jolly, pretty much dashed those hopes. Now you’re seeing Raji trying to get playing time at both positions. One option would be to let him focus on one position and work his way into a productive role.

---

Nick of Chicago writes: I am going to try hard to be polite here. I really do enjoy reading the blog and appreciate the hard work you do. But I think you are overreacting to the Vikes win, and labeling them "the best in the NFC North and it's not even close." Take a step back and look at the difference between the Vikes and the Bears.

Vikes (4-0)
PF 118
PA 80
Opponents Record: 6-10

Bears (3-1)
PF 105
PA 78
Opponents Record: 6-10

Also, you were pretty clear in your assessment of the Bears that you were unimpressed by their defense in the deep middle that they got burned by a lot passing yards. Now look at Monday night’s game. First, the Vikes’ defensive line was unbelievably good. Clearly, they made the difference, getting key turnovers when Green Bay was in the red zone and scoring the safety.

But the secondary not so good. Lots of long pass plays. Green Bay converted on over 50 percent of third downs (7-of-13). Also, in fourth quarter, when the game could have been put away, the Vikings went three and out three times and ran a total of 11 plays (including the two kneel downs) for 13 yards. That’s hardly the hallmark of a great team. I agree they are, right now, a better team than the Bears, but only marginally.

Kevin Seifert: Well done, Nick. Relative to most comments on this blog, that was exceedingly polite, measured and, mostly, accurate. I think it’s dangerous to measure teams simply by the statistics you mentioned, but here’s what I will say:

This won’t make anyone feel any better, nor should it, but I wrote the line you referred to about midway through the fourth quarter of Monday night’s game. It was right after Jared Allen’s safety gave the Vikings a 30-14 lead with 7:25 left. At that point, I felt strongly that this was the Vikings best performance of the Brad Childress era.

Their defense had been dominant. Their passing game had a better mix of efficiency and explosiveness than I had ever seen. Adrian Peterson had been quiet but converted a key fourth down early in the game. Their special teams coverage had been outstanding, and punter Chris Kluwe had downed multiple punts inside the 20-yard line. They had committed only one penalty.

But an elite team wouldn’t have allowed the Packers to make the game as close as it got. They would have either run out more of the clock or continued to hammer away with is pass rush. The Vikings did neither, and by the end of the game a dominant performance had turned into (merely) a satisfying win.

So had I been more on the ball, I probably would have redacted the “not even close” part of that I wrote. After having a week to think about seeing Chicago on Sunday and Minnesota on Monday, I still think the Vikings are a more complete team at this point. But you’re right, the teams are closer than I originally wrote.