ESPN NFL

» NFC Stock Watch: East | West | North | South » AFC: East | West | North | South

FALLING

1. Devin Hester, Chicago Bears receiver: The good news was that Hester was among three receivers in the Bears' starting lineup Sunday against the Detroit Lions. The bad, or at least odd, news: Quarterback Jay Cutler threw only one of 35 passes his way. Fellow receivers Devin Aromashodu (10) and Johnny Knox (seven), along with tailback Matt Forte (seven) were Cutler's primary targets. There was plenty of discussion this summer about Hester's assimilation into Mike Martz's scheme. Martz said at one point that Hester was a natural for the offense, but on Sunday he sure looked like an afterthought. It will be interesting to see if Hester grows into a more significant role.

2. Jahvid Best, Detroit Lions tailback: Fantasy owners no doubt loved Best's pair of touchdowns Sunday against the Bears, and ultimately the goal of every running back is to score. Best, however, gained 11 yards on those two plays and nine on his other 12 carries. It's true that the Bears' front seven mostly stood up the Lions' offensive line, and I didn't see many holes for Best to run through. But over time, you hope Best will use his speed and open-field running ability to create some plays on his own. The Lions have spent the past two seasons relying on a runner who only got the yards his blocking allowed in Kevin Smith. I think they're expecting more from Best.

3. Bernard Berrian, Minnesota Vikings receiver: The season-opening game at New Orleans seems to have happened ages ago. But let's not forget that Berrian was a non-factor in the Vikings' first regular-season outing without Pro Bowl receiver Sidney Rice (hip). Conventional wisdom suggested that Berrian would account for some of Rice's production, but in reality, quarterback Brett Favre continued to look toward his more favored receivers. Favre targeted tight end Visanthe Shiancoe seven times and receiver Percy Harvin on five passes. Berrian saw three thrown his way, catching one for three yards. I realize the Saints were in a Cover 2 defense, which makes it difficult to throw to outside receivers, but the Vikings are going to need more production from Berrian moving forward.

RISING

1. Matt Forte, Chicago Bears tailback: On a number of occasions, we've discussed how nicely Forte appears to fit into the Martz offense -- especially in the passing game. And it doesn't get much better than a seven-catch, 151-yard, two-touchdown performance in the opening game. The yardage total was the second-highest for a running back in Bears history. Forte, meanwhile, was the third running back in NFL history to record 150 or more receiving yards and multiple receiving touchdowns in a game. The other two were Brian Westbrook (2004) and Joe Cribbs (1981). Forte showed a nice burst on an 89-yard screen plan and put his exceptional ball skills on display for his 28-yard game-winning touchdown catch. I'm sure he would have liked to punch the ball into the end zone during a failed goal-line effort in the fourth quarter, but Forte established himself as a force in this offense regardless.

2. Kyle Vanden Bosch, Detroit Lions defensive end: In his first game since signing a free-agent contract, Vanden Bosch was all over the field. He recorded 10 solo tackles and set what I thought was a new standard for hustle and intensity on the Lions' defense. We've been discussing this aspect of Vanden Bosch's game since training camp, and now you see how it translates in a game. On top of that, don't forget that Vanden Bosch had at least three post-throw hits on Cutler, at least by my unofficial count. He didn't have a sack, but multiple hits over time always take their toll on a quarterback.

3. Clay Matthews, Green Bay Packers linebacker: Matthews celebrated his return to the Packers' lineup -- and his shift to a new position on the left side of the line -- by making a team-high seven tackles and accumulating two sacks in a 27-20 victory over the Philadelphia Eagles. Matthews also made the game-ending stop of Eagles quarterback Michael Vick on fourth-and-1 from the Packers' 42-yard line. Matthews missed most of the summer for the second consecutive year because of a hamstring injury, but it appears that 40-year-old quarterbacks aren't the only people who don't need training camp.

We're Black and Blue All Over:

Thanks to everyone for their patience during what was a wild Tuesday afternoon in the NFC North. Brett Favre's return to Minnesota forced us to cancel our weekly SportsNation chat, which I promise to make up later this week, and veered us from our division-wide mission for one day.

I'll be at the Vikings' Winter Park practice facility Wednesday afternoon, having taken the team's statement that "media availability with QB Brett Favre is to be determined" as quasi-confirmation that he has in fact been reinstated to the roster. But we'll also resume coverage of the entire division, beginning with our morning spin.

Suamico72 -- who, like me, never sleeps but unlike me is counting consecutive FavreWatch posts -- will be so disappointed.

• After a few swings and misses, the Chicago Bears brought in free-agent quarterback Matt Gutierrez for a visit as a potential short-term replacement to injured backup Caleb Hanie. ESPNChicago.com's Jeff Dickerson has more.
• The "turbo" gear of Bears tailback Matt Forte has been evident in training camp, writes Sean Jensen of the Chicago Sun-Times.
• Brad Biggs of the Chicago Tribune: "Frank Omiyale's adventure at right tackle has been much smoother than a year ago, when the Bears inserted him at left guard. Omiyale graded out well in Saturday's exhibition opener, and the Bears are hoping that will serve as a building block for the offensive line. He looked more comfortable and natural, even if he's more accustomed to the left side, after struggling to play with proper leverage a year ago."
• Dave Birkett of the Detroit Free Press: "Last week in the middle of training camp, when tired legs and body aches were beginning to set in, Turk McBride gave the rest of the [Detroit] Lions defensive linemen a pick-me-up by hanging stuffed monkeys in their lockers."
• Lions coach Jim Schwartz had to cut Tuesday's practice short because of "an acute personnel shortage in the secondary," according to Chris McCosky of the Detroit News. Here is McCosky's rundown of the injury list: Cornerbacks Jonathan Wade (finger), Dre Bly (thigh), Aaron Berry (hamstring) and Jack Williams (knee), and safeties Louis Delmas (groin), Dante Wesley (unspecified) and Ko Simpson (knee). Safety Randy Phillips also left the field because of dehydration.
• Rookie Lions defensive end Willie Young flashed enough promise in last Saturday's preseason opener at Pittsburgh to make veteran end Jason Hunter expendable, writes Tom Kowalski of Mlive.com.
• The Green Bay Packers' fluid situation at outside linebacker has yet to clear itself up, writes Rob Demovsky of the Green Bay Press-Gazette.
• The Packers passed on signing free-agent tailback Brian Westbrook, who ultimately landed in San Francisco, writes Tom Silverstein of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
• Uh-oh. Oft-injured Packers defensive lineman Justin Harrell experienced tightness in his back Tuesday and sat out both practices, according to Jason Wilde of ESPNMilwaukee.com.

We're Black and Blue All Over:

Chicago Bears

The Chicago Tribune's Brad Biggs examines three key questions surrounding the Bears' offense: 1) Will Jay Cutler deliver? 2) Can the Bears run the ball effectively? and 3) Will the O-line get the job done?

The Tribune's Dan Pompei looks at the impact new director of player personnel Tim Ruskell will have on the organization.

ChicagoBears.com has the second installment of a video series on rookie minicamp. This one features sixth-round pick Dan LeFevour, who grew up dreaming of playing for the Bears.

Detroit Lions

Carlos Monarrez preview the training camp battles between incumbent running back starter Kevin Smith and first-rounder Jahvid Best.

When the Lions released safety Daniel Bullocks last week, they purged the last player remaining on the roster from the Matt Millen era. The Detroit News' Tim Twentyman looks at how far the Lions have come since Martin Mayhew took over as GM.

Green Bay Packers

In his latest podcast, ESPNMilwaukee.com's Jason Wilde looks at whether an NFL team could replicate what the NBA's Miami Heat did in free agency.

Kareem Copeland of the Green Bay Press-Gazette looks at the challenges facing Dan Froelich, the chef feeding the Packers during training camp.

The team's website has an interview with former tackle Greg Koch, who will be one of three 2010 inductees into the team's Hall of Fame.

Minnesota Vikings

In his latest mailbag, vikings.com's Mike Wobschall looks at the odds of the team making a run at veteran running back Brian Westbrook.

Four Vikings fans are planning to make a trek from Minneapolis to Hattiesburg, Miss., to thank Brett Favre personally.

I was too busy watching LOST and then sleeping, but Minnesota's stadium bill made it through a state House committee late -- and, I mean, at almost midnight Wednesday -- but not without major reconstruction that could hinder its progress.

According to this dispatch form Mike Kaszuba of the Star Tribune, supporters removed most of the public financing options in order to get it approved. That includes all so-called user fees originally put in the bill, including taxes on hotels, rental cars and sports memorabilia. Those taxes had come under fire because they would include people who don't use the stadium.

The remaining financing mechanism would divert a sales tax used for paying off the Minneapolis Convention Center, one that has drawn criticism from Minneapolis city leaders who say the sales tax will be needed for convention center upkeep.

The new bill essentially requires the stadium to be built in Minneapolis, as opposed to the site-neutral approach the team originally took.

Continuing around the NFC North:

• Vikings quarterback Tarvaris Jackson on Sirius NFL radio via Judd Zulgad of the Star Tribune: "Honestly, it crossed my mind and I've wanted change, but change is not always good."
• Detroit claimed receiver Marko Mitchell off waivers from Washington, according to John Niyo of the Detroit News. Mitchell was a preseason sensation last summer for the Redskins.
• The Lions never seemed to pursue Adam "Pacman" Jones after attending one of his workouts last month, writes Carlos Monarrez of the Detroit Free Press.
• Also from Niyo: Five players who will make or break the Lions in 2010.
• In case you hadn't seen it yet: Former Chicago running back Gale Sayers criticized Bears coach Lovie Smith, quarterback Jay Cutler and the front office. That about covers it.
• For Bears fans who wanted the team to sign receiver Torry Holt, Michael Wright of ESPNChicago.com writes Holt was "not even close to being the guy he used to be" last year in Jacksonville.
• In a chat on the Green Bay Press-Gazette website, Mike Vandermause writes: "I don't see [Brian] Westbrook signing with the Packers, either now or in the future. Why take a chance on someone who is one hard hit away from retirement?

We're pulling away from draft coverage, but this segment of our lives wouldn't be complete without a peek at -- yes -- the 2011 draft. We posted video of Daniel Jeremiah's top-5 players earlier this week, but now we have a 32-team preview from Todd McShay. (The order is based on a quick 2010 power rankings exercise from Scouts Inc.)

You need an Insider subscription to view the entire list, but I can deliver you McShay's choices for NFC North teams. And no, he doesn't have Minnesota taking any of the four quarterbacks that went in the first round of his draft.

Detroit Lions (No. 8)
Pick: North Carolina defensive end Robert Quinn
Seifert comment: The Lions could be the first 5-3-3 defense in recent NFL history.

Chicago Bears (No. 10)
Pick: North Carolina linebacker Bruce Carter
Seifert comment: It's just so unusual for the Bears to have a first-round pick. We should just soak in the moment.

Green Bay Packers (No. 28)
Pick: Virginia Tech running back Ryan Williams
Seifert comment: But what if the Packers sign Brian Westbrook or trade for Marshawn Lynch? Oh, wait ...

Minnesota Vikings (No. 30)
Pick: Miami defensive tackle Allen Bailey
Seifert comment: Pat Williams immediately retires -- then comes back with the Packers.

Earlier this month, we discussed Green Bay's options behind starting running back Ryan Grant and noted an endorsement of backup Brandon Jackson from coach Mike McCarthy. Still, it appears the Packers are at least doing their due diligence on a wider array of possibilities.

According to Tom Silverstein of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the Packers have inquired about free-agent running back Brian Westbrook. There hasn't been much market interest in Westbrook, who missed eight games in Philadelphia last season because of repeated concussions, but he could fill a third-down role for the Packers if he is healthy.

We all know the Packers don't often sign veteran free agents, and so we should proceed cautiously on this possibility. But as the offseason continues, Westbrook's price gets lower and lower. If the Packers can bring him in on a mostly risk-free basis, they might give it some serious thought.

Continuing around the NFC North with the draft less than 10 days away:

• Minnesota defensive end Jared Allen will work the corner of an MMA fight next week, helping his friend Alex Karalexis, according to Chip Scoggins of the Star Tribune.
• Detroit defensive end Jared DeVries is hoping to win the Lions' starting left end position, he told reporters Monday in a conference call. Some of his comments are posted on the Lions' Web site.
• Virginia Tech safety Kam Chancellor visited the Lions' facility recently, according to Nicholas J. Cotsonika of the Detroit Free Press.
• Linebacker is Chicago's strongest position after the return of free agent Pisa Tinoisamoa, writes Jeff Dickerson of ESPNChicago.com.
• If it were up to Bears linebacker Lance Briggs, Tinoisamoa would win the starting strongside linebacker job. Briggs told Vaughn McClure of the Chicago Tribune: "Pisa is an elite linebacker in this league."

Chug-a-chug. Chug-a-chug. Can you hear it? That's the sound of our NFC North train gaining steam as we approach the 2010 NFL draft. We're at T-minus 19 days. The intensity of our discussions will continue ramping up until April 22 arrives.

There are any number of places where we can rap about the draft. (Like my flow?) You can hit the mailbag, join us over on Facebook or tweet us on Twitter. Let's see what's on your mind this weekend.

Christopher of Minneapolis writes: Kevin, I gotta ask why you think players have been turning down coming to play for the Vikings. Last offseason, T.J. Houshmandzadeh decided to go to a Seattle team that was obviously in a much worse place than the Vikings at the time in their division. Then this year already two free agents have chosen other teams over us: LaDainian Tomlinson and Tye Hill (not sure how good of an addition he would actually have been). So I'm asking what do you think it is about playing here? We have a an owner that wants to win, a very good team with a good chance at making a deep playoff run. I just don't get why free agents would pass up the opportunity to play here.

Kevin Seifert: Christopher, I think you're looking at only half of a trend. There's no doubt some high-profile free agents/trade candidates have turned down offers from the Vikings in recent years, but there are plenty of others who did not. The list includes quarterback Brett Favre, defensive end Jared Allen, receiver Bernard Berrian and tight end Visanthe Shiancoe. It's not as if no one will come to the Vikings. It's more like some.

If there is a trend, we should look for a common denominator. In the cases you mention, I don't see one. Houshmandzadeh went to Seattle in part because he thought the Seahawks' quarterback position was stronger. Favre was still months away from signing. Tomlinson, meanwhile, is going to play a lot more with the New York Jets than he would have in Minnesota. That's just a fact of life with Adrian Peterson on the roster.

As for Hill, you're right: His decision was a relatively minor one. At best, he would have competed for the nickel job with Benny Sapp. The timing of his decision to sign with Tennessee -- hours after visiting the Vikings -- suggested the visit might have been intended all along to increase leverage with the Titans.

I know there are some issues that might make the Vikings less than attractive to some free agents, from the aging practice facility to their uncertain future in the Metrodome. But I don't see any common thread in the instances you've mentioned.

---

Via Facebook, Ben of Fort Smith, Ark., writes: I just read that Jared Gaither could possibly be available for a second-round pick. He played very well last year and still has plenty of room to improve. I believe the Ravens use a different blocking scheme than Green Bay does, but do you think it would be worthwhile for the Packers to make a move for him and get the jump on one of the top corners or OLBs in the draft, rather than settle for possibly the fifth-best tackle prospect and then whichever corners or OLBs are left later on?

Kevin Seifert: I've gotten more than a few questions on Gaither, not only from Packers fans but also from those who follow Detroit.

To review: Gaither is Baltimore's 24-year-old left tackle, a player many in Baltimore figured would be a fixture for the next 10 years. The Ravens hedged their commitment, however, by placing only a first-round tender on him as a restricted free agent. That means a team signing Gaither to an offer sheet would only have to give up a first-round pick, and perhaps less if they work out a sign-and-trade deal with the Ravens.

If you're the Packers, you would gladly give up the No. 23 overall pick for a long-term answer at left tackle. The same would probably go for the Lions, who have the second pick (No. 34 overall) of the second round.

But here's the question: Is Gaither a lock to be that kind of franchise player? It's only fair to wonder when the Ravens, who know him best, seem prepared to listen to offers. You could point out that Baltimore has Michael Oher on board and ready to move to left tackle. But if the Ravens trust Gaither's future, it's doubtful they would give up on him regardless. They seem to have some doubts.

It's easy to think that another team's disappointment could be your club's success story. Ultimately, that could be the case with Gaither. But if he's really available, it's fair to wonder why the Ravens don't want to keep him.

---

Rob of Milwaukee writes: If the rumors are true about the Packers interest in Brian Westbrook, could this mean the end of Ahman Green in Green Bay?

Kevin Seifert: First, I don't have any confirmation that the Packers are in fact interested in Westbrook. General manager Ted Thompson doesn't often have interest in aging veteran free agents, no matter what position or talent level. And as we discussed Thursday, coach Mike McCarthy believes backup tailback Brandon Jackson made significant strides last season.

If the Packers decide they need a veteran in the backfield, I wouldn't at all be surprised if Green -- not Westbrook -- is the choice. Here's what McCarthy said on that topic at last month's owners meeting: "...I like what Ahman Green gave us there at the end of the year. I thought once he got reacquainted with some of the things we do that are different from when he was here earlier, and frankly he did some nice things on special teams once he got comfortable. I mean, he's definitely an option that's potentially out there."

---

Bryan of St. Marys, Ga., writes: I was wondering if you had heard anything about a possible trade between the Lions and Redskins switching first round picks?

Kevin Seifert: It's certainly being rumored, but like most draft-related intrigue, it's based mostly on circumstantial evidence.

St. Louis seems likely to draft Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford at No. 1 overall. The next-best quarterback is Notre Dame's Jimmy Clausen, who seems to be drawing interest from Washington (No. 4) and Cleveland (No. 7), among other teams.

So if you're Detroit and you want to trade out of the No. 2 pick, you have to hope that multiple teams emerge with a strong desire to draft Clausen. That team could take a chance and deal with Tampa Bay at No. 3, but the only way to ensure Clausen will be available is to trade into the Lions' spot.

To be clear, there is no evidence that we've reached this point yet. But that's what would need to happen for the Lions and Redskins to swap places in the draft.

---

Chris of San Diego writes: I read that Lance Louis of the Chicago Bears is subject to the NFL conduct policy for a crime he committed prior to being drafted because he pleaded guilty to it a year after he was drafted. Can you explain why he is retroactively subject to NFL rules?

Kevin Seifert: The original incident -- a fight with a former San Diego State teammate -- occurred in November 2008. But from what I understand, the league considers the incident part of its personal conduct policy because the charges were filed after Louis signed with the Bears last summer. That's the distinction, however arbitrary it might be.

With all that said, Louis pleaded guilty to misdemeanor battery, making it unlikely he'll face an NFL suspension. A fine could be in order, however.

If I had even a penny for every time a Green Bay fan has asked about Brian Westbrook or LaDainian Tomlinson or some other possibility to provide depth behind tailback Ryan Grant, well, I'd have many coins. Let's face it: It would be out of character for the Packers to sign a veteran free agent this time of year.

But there are other elements at play here as well. Listening to coach Mike McCarthy speak last week at the NFL owners meeting, it sure sounded like he has supreme confidence in Brandon Jackson to handle the job. If a veteran becomes a necessity at some point, Ahman Green might be the first option.

McCarthy said he thought Jackson took a "huge step" last season, specifically in a Dec. 20 game at Pittsburgh.

"I thought against Pittsburgh that his blitz pickup was as good as I've seen since Marcus Allen in the early '90s," McCarthy said. "And his confidence and everything from that game, I thought he took a big step and I'm hoping he can maintain that or take it further as we move on."

My thoughts on this topic have evolved now that Grant has established himself as a legitimate full-time runner. As with Minnesota, the Packers' backup running back is a secondary role that becomes a big deal only if the starter is unavailable. Grant has proved exceptionally durable in three years with the Packers, playing in 47 of a possible 48 games.

The Packers haven't often gotten big-time yardage from a backup running back in recent years, as you can see in the chart below. Last season, in fact, quarterback Aaron Rodgers was their second-leading rusher. Green and Jackson followed with 160 and 111 yards, respectively.


So while you can never rule out the possibility of high-profile addition, most clues -- and common sense -- suggest the Packers will put their faith in Jackson to handle this role in 2010.

» NFC Big Question: East | West | North | South » AFC: East | West | North | South

A new Tuesday feature on the ESPN.com NFL blog network.

Is LaDainian Tomlinson the right fit to back up Adrian Peterson in Minnesota?

There has been a natural connecting of the dots between Minnesota coach Brad Childress and free agent Brian Westbrook, his former player in Philadelphia. But initial reports suggest the Vikings are focusing at least their initial investigation on Tomlinson to replace departed backup tailback Chester Taylor.

Although Tomlinson has had some nagging injuries in recent years, he has missed only three games in his career and in general has been more durable than Westbrook.

You wouldn't want Tomlinson as your feature back for an extended period, an issue the Vikings wouldn't have to deal with if Peterson makes it through the season healthy. If he's willing, Tomlinson would be a natural to fill the third-down role Taylor excelled in. Here's a portion of Scouts Inc.'s evaluation of Tomlinson prior to free agency:

Tomlinson is a nine-year veteran who has been playing with diminishing skills over the past few seasons. He still has enough physical tools to contribute in the league but not an impact ball carrier as he was early in his career. ... As a receiver, Tomlinson has always had good hands and is one of the more natural receiving backs in the league. Health and durability are concerns at this point because he has a lot of mileage on him.

As the pace of free agency slows, we’ll get a chance to consider more closely the costs and repercussions of recent activity. Tim of Stoughton, Wis., gets credit for a question many of asked after tailback Chester Taylor jumped from Minnesota to Chicago:

Would the Vikings ever consider Percy Harvin as [Adrian] Peterson’s backup? RB is his natural position and he would get more touches per game.

My short answer: ARGGGHHHHHHHH.

OK, I’ll try again: Thank you, Tim, for your thoughtful and well-received suggestion. I respectfully posit that it might not represent the best use of Harvin’s skills.

I understand where Tim and others are coming from. Harvin is electric in the open field, he was a game-breaker from the backfield in college and there is no easier way to get him the ball than to thrust it into his stomach.

But to me, making Harvin a more-than-occasional running back would reduce his overall impact. Every play that starts with him in the backfield is one less play where he is pressuring defenses downfield or at least taking attention away from somewhere else.

Even making Harvin the third-down back is problematic. I wouldn’t want him picking up a blitz; I would want him catching a conversion pass against the blitz.

No one is quite sure yet how the Vikings will replace Taylor. We’ve discussed free agents Brian Westbrook and LaDainian Tomlinson. There are some who believe former Iowa running back Albert Young, who has spent two years in development, could get a shot at the role. But let’s just say it’s my opinion that Harvin shouldn’t be one of the possibilities.

Minnesota can now sign two unrestricted free agents after losing offensive lineman Artis Hicks to Washington on Saturday evening. ESPN's John Clayton reports Hicks agreed to a three-year deal.

Because the Vikings were one of the Final Four teams in the 2009 playoffs, their input of unrestricted free agents (UFA) can't exceed their output. Contracts must also be comparable.

So the Vikings can sign one UFA to replace tailback Chester Taylor, who signed a four-year deal worth $12.5 million with $7 million guaranteed. They can sign another to replace Hicks, whose contract terms weren't immediately available.

Remember, there is a difference between a UFA and a free agent who is on the market because his contract was terminated. Running backs LaDainian Tomlinson and Brian Westbrook are examples of the latter pool, from which the Vikings can acquire an indefinite number of players.

Two down with one (big) name to go in Chicago.

ESPN's Adam Schefter reports the Bears have agreed to terms with free agent running back Chester Taylor on a four-year contract worth $12.5 million. The deal includes $7 million in guarantees, which was more than enough to convince Taylor to jump from the Bears' NFC North rivals.

(By the way, it appears to be a matter of time before defensive end Julius Peppers follows Taylor and tight end Brandon Manumaleuna by signing on the Bears' dotted line.)

I'm sure the Vikings aren't thrilled to have lost Taylor to a division rival. But I just don't see how they could have guaranteed a player $7 million for 150 touches in 2010. That's what Taylor averaged the past two seasons while playing behind starter Adrian Peterson, and the only way that figure would have changed next season is if Peterson gets hurt.

This was simply a matter of Taylor being more valuable to the Bears than he was to the Vikings. The Vikings will have their pick of veteran replacements for Taylor, from Brian Westbrook to LaDainian Tomlinson, or they could elevate youngster Albert Young. They wanted Taylor back, but they can navigate his loss.

The Bears, on the other hand, had justifiable reasons for throwing elite cash in Taylor's direction. Starter Matt Forte slumped in his second season and is far from the long-term lock that Peterson is. Assuming Forte maintains his starting job, Taylor fills a role the Bears have been trying to address for two years: A change-of-pace back who can reliably spell the starter. And Taylor has all the skills necessary to succeed in Mike Martz's offense, from his soft hands to his discipline against the blitz to his open-field running ability after the catch.

The Bears have added a legitimate offensive weapon who will land in a compatible system while surrounded by teammates who will afford him the limited role he can succeed in. The Vikings bid farewell to a part-time player who would have been an awfully expensive insurance policy. I can't argue with either decision.

We're officially into draft season here in the NFL, although it seems like there never is an offseason for draft stories. The combine continues into the beginning of next week, and then we head straight to college Pro Days, followed by individual workouts, contract negotiations and, finally, the first round on April 22.

Whew! So much to talk about! So little time. For your convenience, you can access our conversations through the mailbag portal, on our rocking Facebook page and via Twitter. "Please" and/or "thank you" always help.

Anyways....

Derek of Baldwin, Wis., writes: I have to ask about Chester Taylor's situation. Why wouldn't the Vikings put the franchise tag on him to, at the very least, control where he goes and to get some sort of compensation for him WHEN, not if, he leaves them. I realize it is a $7-8 million risk, but what if they could negotiate a 2nd-round pick from some team and avoid him going to a rival?

Kevin Seifert: I understand what you're saying, Derek. But in this case, I think there are a couple of factors working against that dynamic. First, because the obvious intent would be to circumvent Taylor's date with free agency, you could rest assured he wouldn't agree to a long-term extension.

So then the Vikings would have the uncomfortable situation of paying a backup running back more than the All-Pro starter. That's right. If Taylor played next season at the franchise tag number of $8.156 million, he would make almost exactly $2 million more than Adrian Peterson is scheduled to earn ($6.14 million).

While there wouldn't be a salary cap to worry about, that's a tremendous amount of cash to pay out to two players at the same position.

Given that situation, I'm not sure the Vikings would have the leverage to get anywhere close to a second-round pick for Taylor. Minnesota would be in a position where it would have to make the trade, a poor position for extracting maximum value.

Long story short, I don't think it would have been worth the effort -- especially when it's quite possible the Vikings could strike a deal before free agency begins. It's also not out of the question that Taylor could re-sign with the Vikings after testing his value elsewhere.

---

John of Waukesha, Wis., writes: Just for fun, how about exploring the possibility of a team, like Detroit, using the Toxic 1 (in this case 2) pick to destroy its competitors? Example: What if Detroit signed Ryan Pickett, and the Packers had to take on those $30 million in toxic picks of Detroit! (Assuming Detroit will be horrid next year) Are these toxic picks perhaps better used as a weapon?

Kevin Seifert: Interesting proposal, John. For those unsure of what he's talking about: High draft positions are often referred to as "toxic" because no one wants them or is willing to go near them. The cost of signing the No. 1 or No. 2 pick, as the Lions found out last year with quarterback Matthew Stafford, is enormous.

So in John's scenario, the Lions would sign Pickett, Green Bay's franchise player. The deal would average, say, $7 million per year -- much less than the $12 million or more annually they would have to pay a rookie defensive tackle in the No. 2 spot. The cost for signing a franchise player would be two first-round draft picks, meaning the Packers would get the Lions' No. 2 overall pick this year and wherever they pick in 2011.

While Pickett would be a decent addition, you can't argue he's worth two first-round picks. So the primary reason for the move would be to force the Packers into a pair of "toxic" positions where they would have to pay enormous sums for the players they draft.

In an uncapped year, however, that hit isn't as painful as it might otherwise have been. Other than having to shell out the cash, the Packers wouldn't absorb any kind of salary cap problem here. That's one reason it is highly unlikely to happen.

The other reason, whether you're in an uncapped year or not, is this: Teams picking near the top of the draft usually have too many needs on their own team to make such a primary goal of handicapping another.

---

Mupad3da of the Bay Area writes: I don't know if this has been mentioned or not in the midst of your thoughts about the other North teams and their RB situations, but what are your thoughts about either Brian Westbrook or LaDainian Tomlinson going to Green Bay? Both are looking for a winning team with Super Bowl aspirations, which the Packers could provide. The Packers have a need at running back behind Ryan Grant, a guy who can provide a good change-of-pace and/or spark on maybe 5-10 touches a game.

Kevin Seifert: I got a lot of complaints this week about not suggesting Tomlinson and Westbrook as candidates in Green Bay, the way I did for Minnesota. I guess I would answer that question the same way I do for every free-agent scenario with the Packers: What evidence do we have from recent years that the Packers would step out and sign a significant free agent?

Like it or not, and we've discussed it often, free agency hasn't been the favored tack of general manger Ted Thompson in recent years. Independent of whether either player is a good fit, and I think you can make an argument that both are, the Packers are always unlikely candidates to sign any free agents. Until they prove otherwise.

---

Anthony of Clinton Township, Mich. writes: There are numerous comments and rumors from Miami Dolphins fan sites stating that the Dolphins and Lions are in talks of some kind of trade. Names thrown around are Calvin Johnson, Cliff Avril, Ernie Sims, Ronnie Brown, and Ted Ginn Jr. Do you have any idea what's going on? We are flipping out that Calvin is even being mentioned. So far though it seems like the Dolphins want Avril and the Lions want Ginn Jr.

Kevin Seifert: I've heard nothing concrete on any such trade talk, although several readers wrote in to ask specifically about a Cliff Avril-Ted Ginn Jr. trade. If I'm the Lions, I take that deal. I know pass rushing defensive ends are a premium commodity, but if Avril is going to be a 5-sack per year player, I'd take my chances that Ginn could develop into a game-breaker.

I don't see the Lions trading Calvin Johnson under any circumstances. They need more help around him, however. We all saw what happened last year when Bryant Johnson couldn't step up as a legitimate No. 2 receiver. Calvin Johnson got bottled up in coverage while Bryant Johnson was dropping passes in single coverage. Ginn could be an upgrade there, at the cost of a nice but mildly productive defensive end.

---

Dustin of Chicago writes: Julius Peppers is asking for a lot of money guaranteed for the final years of his career. However, given the inflation of the rookie salaries from round 1 and 2, isn't it better to pay for a player in his prime rather than shell out money for the boom or bust? Could you compare the type of salaries a Bears draft pick would require compared to what Peppers is asking?

Kevin Seifert: If reports are accurate, Peppers is seeking some $40 million in guaranteed money -- a deal similar to what Washington gave defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth last winter. The Bears wouldn't have to pay that much to a rookie unless they had the No. 1 overall pick, and the player was a quarterback. Remember, Detroit gave quarterback Matthew Stafford $41.7 million in guarantees last year.

I think that's a good illustration of why NFL players and owners are both unhappy with the current rookie wage system. There should be no way that a rookie is guaranteed more money than one of the best pass rushers in the game.

I'm not saying it's a no-brainer to pay Peppers that kind of money, but if given a choice, you're right: You probably want a veteran getting it.

---

Via Facebook, Lisa writes: The CBA is a mind-boggling issue. The deadline is March but if an agreement is not reached, then free agency is greatly affected as we all know. What if an agreement is reached in April or May? Does this change the rules in the middle of things? If so do you think teams will take the wait-and-see approach?

Kevin Seifert: It's definitely tough to figure out, Lisa. If an agreement is reached later this spring -- and there is no evidence to suggest this would happen -- part of the negotiations will include how to teams will transition into the new system. But a new agreement won't necessarily include a salary cap, so we can't assume there would be massive changes when it is implemented.

While a team or two might go hog-wild in free agency, I think most will keep in mind the possibility that there could one day be a salary cap again. So they'll do their best not to put themselves in a cap hole if an when that circumstance arises.

---

Randal of Cambridge, Minn., writes: Whenever you refer to the trade chart, I think you should explain that many people feel it is outdated -- even the new version that came out a couple of years ago. To justify the fact that it does not mean too much, just look at the last couple of years. Almost every top-10 team wanted to trade down, but found almost nobody who wanted to trade up. So supply and demand must push those values down.

Kevin Seifert: Thanks Randall, and I understand what you're saying. Even Jim Schwartz said this week that he never consults that chart because every trade is a unique circumstance.

A couple of points on this issue: While it might not be an exact representation of fairness, I think it gives amateurs like us a decent framework for understanding what it might take to make a trade, especially later on in the draft. It's not so much for grading who got the better end of the deal, but rather predicting what a team might have to consider giving up to move where it wants to go.

As for moving into the top 10, I think that's a matter of economics as much as the value of the picks they would have to give up. Teams don't want to pay the exorbitant levels of guaranteed money associated with top-level picks. Even if the teams with the top picks lowered the "trade value number" and made a trade more palatable on that end, I still think there would be limited suitors because of the money involved.

---

Dude of Wisconsin writes: Man your chats are cool but you mailbag stinks. Paul Kuharsky answers way more questions than you. You go anywhere from three to five questions. I'm sure you get tons of mail questions for it. Why are you so cheap on your mail questions?

Kevin Seifert: Paul thanks you for your support. Typically, I limit the questions to give myself more time to flesh out longer answers. I try to pick representative questions that would appeal to the entire NFC North audience. This week, however, I got a lot of good questions and got on a roll. Hope you're happy, and enjoy your weekend.

While you might have guessed that I'm not at the scouting combine, I'll still do my best to link you to the major happenings and interviews throughout the event.

• Minnesota vice president Rick Spielman indicated he has no idea whether quarterback Brett Favre will return in 2010. Spielman wouldn't entertain questions about the Vikings' quarterback plan in the interim. "I don't want to get into what we're committed to and what we're not committed to because I think this time of year everything is in flux," Spielman said. Everything is etched in oatmeal."
• Spielman also wouldn't address the Vikings' potential interest in free agent running backs LaDainian Tomlinson or Brian Westbrook, but confirmed there will be discussions this week with the agent for tailback Chester Taylor. "We plan on talking to Chester's guy and seeing where he's at and then we'll just go on from there," Spielman said.
• Detroit coach Jim Schwartz downplayed the possibility of either starting tackle, Jeff Backus or Gosder Cherilus, moving to guard in 2010. Schwartz believes Backus had a Pro Bowl-caliber year last season.
• Lions tailback Kevin Smith has decided not to undergo surgery to tighten his shoulder capsule, Schwartz told Detroit-area reporters at the combine.

I suppose we can't suggest LaDainian Tomlinson as a possible replacement for Chester Taylor without also adding Brian Westbrook to the list.

Above all else, I believe Minnesota wants to re-sign Taylor before the free-agent market opens. But if Taylor decides to test his value elsewhere -- a respectable decision given the relatively few miles on his 31-year-old legs -- the Vikings will need a backup/third-down back behind Adrian Peterson.

Tomlinson, who has averaged almost 60 receptions per season in his career, would be one option. Westbrook, whom the Eagles informed would be released Tuesday, would be another.

Westbrook would have the advantage of familiarity with Vikings coach Brad Childress, his offensive coordinator in Philadelphia from 2002 to 2005. But he also comes with more medical baggage than Tomlinson, who has missed only three games in his career.

There is no doubt Childress has an affinity for early-decade Eagles players and staffers. He hired defensive coordinator Leslie Frazier in part because of his time in Philadelphia from 1999 to 2001. The Vikings' athletic training and strength/conditioning staffs were once based in Philadelphia, and the Vikings have signed several former Eagles players -- Billy McMullen, Artis Hicks, Koy Detmer, Todd Pinkston and Greg Lewis among them. In 2007, meanwhile, the Vikings pursued free agent quarterback A.J. Feeley.

I'm sure Childress would like to have a healthy Westbrook on his team. But does Westbrook have a clean bill of health? At this point, the answer is uncertain.