ESPN NFL

In March, two Minnesota Vikings players -- punter Chris Kluwe and center John Sullivan -- called for the NFL to suspend New Orleans Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma for his role in the Saints' bounty program prior to the 2009 NFC Championship Game. At the time, we noted a developing and awkward dynamic: NFL Players Association (NFLPA) members advocating against their union brethren.

Sullivan, in fact, went so far as to say: "As a union member, I'll be very upset if we come to the defense of these acts. They're indefensible. You can't defend them. It's despicable, has no place in the sport."

Vilma, whom the NFL said offered a $10,000 reward for any player who knocked then-Vikings quarterback Brett Favre out of the 2009 NFC Championship Game, received a one-year suspension. We haven't yet heard from Sullivan, but Kluwe said via Twitter that the suspension is "just."

Kluwe also provided an extended and nuanced analysis of the what he called a "tough spot" for the NFLPA, which has already pledged to "vigorously protect" Vilma and the three other suspended players and "pursue all options on their behalf."

Here's what Kluwe tweeted:

"Vilma and the others deserve the right to an appeal; while I agree with the commissioner's decision others may not, and that's fine, this is America. However, the union has to simultaneously balance defending four guys against the judgment, of [Roger] Goodell (which needs oversight, make no mistake) while at the same time recognizing those four guys were attempting to harm other union members, who also deserve that same protection. The union cannot be just about appeals when someone does something wrong. It also has to be a shield for those men who are a part of it that you never hear about, but pay the same dues and play the same game. I can only hope that the leadership of the NFLPA realizes this, and acts in *all* of its members' interests, however that takes place."

I find this a fascinating, if subtle, subplot of this story. The NFLPA argues the NFL hasn't provided evidence of its accusations, but obviously there are at least some players -- and union members -- who are convinced otherwise. By definition, players engaging in a bounty system are trying to harm other players. Why isn't the union jumping to the defense of the targeted players, which according to the league includes Favre, Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers, Arizona Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner and Carolina Panthers quarterback Cam Newton?

I realize this is a tough day in the NFL for a lot of reasons. I just think this issue merits some discussion along with everything else. The story has thus far centered around the aggressors. What about the victims?

We're Black and Blue All Over:

Tom Silverstein of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel provides the hard numbers that will make it so difficult for the Green Bay Packers to use their franchise tag on quarterback Matt Flynn, with the purposes of trading him, rather than simply allowing him to leave via free agency.

The basics: The Packers have about $113.3 million already allocated for a 2012 cap expected to remain around $120 million. That means they have around $7 million in wiggle room. But using their tag on Flynn would require a $14 million commitment, requiring them to clear at least another $7 million -- and that's if they don't do any other contracts all offseason.

Tight end Jermichael Finley and center Scott Wells, among others, are pending free agents. The Packers probably want to keep both, but it would be tough to squeeze in the 2012 cap numbers of their presumptive new contracts while also leaving Flynn's $14 million on the books even in a temporary situation. A more likely scenario would be to let Flynn depart and use the remaining space on a deal for Wells, and perhaps a much-cheaper franchise tag on Finley.

Teams can do any single move they want in the cap era if they're willing to sacrifice in other areas. In this case, would it be worth it to get an extra draft pick or two for Flynn if it means losing Finley and/or Wells in the process? I'm guessing no.

Continuing around the NFC North:

• The New York Giants used the 2010 Packers as motivation in their run to the Super Bowl, writes Kareem Copeland of the Green Bay Press-Gazette.
• Rob Reischel of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel wonders if Packers running back James Starks is ready to be the team's unquestioned starter in 2012.
• Giants linebacker Michael Boley is a signature draft pick of new Chicago Bears general manager Phil Emery, writes Dan Pompei of the Chicago Tribune.
• The Bears would be advised to invest in a veteran backup quarterback, Giants backup David Carr told Jeff Dickerson of ESPNChicago.com.
• Former NFL quarterback Kurt Warner told Peggy Kusinski of NBC Chicago that the Bears needed better receivers to succeed in former coordinator Mike Martz's offense.
• The agent for Detroit Lions defensive end Cliff Avril is in talks with the team about a long-term contract, according to Tim Twentyman of the team's website.
• Avril doesn't want the Lions to use their franchise tag to keep him, writes Dave Birkett of the Detroit Free Press.
• New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick isn't surprised by the success of Lions coach Jim Schwartz. Anwar S. Richardson of Mlive.com explains.
• Financial troubles facing the NBA's Target Center in Minneapolis are proving a hurdle in the Minnesota Vikings' stadium drive, writes Maya Rao of the Star Tribune.

DALLAS -- Former NFL quarterback Kurt Warner threw for 377 yards against the Pittsburgh Steelers in Super Bowl XLIII, one of several reasons his thoughts will be among the most credible this week as the Green Bay Packers prepare for Super Bowl XLV.

Appearing Monday morning on ESPN's "First Take," Warner offered a specific and Packers-friendly formula for moving the ball against the Steelers.

"I've always felt that the Steelers' defense ... they're always built around the linebackers -- and specifically around those two outside guys who can rush the passer and create so much havoc. And so anytime I play a team like that, I always wanted to spread them out.

"If I had four receivers where I could force those linebackers either to cover, to get out in space, or to force them off the field, that's what I wanted to do. I wanted to take the strength of a team and attack it. That's what I would tell the Packers. You've got four great wide receivers, guys that made plays all year long. Use those receivers. Spread out the defense. Force them to do something different than what they want to."

Warner offered one caution, however.

"It leaves some short edges for guys like James Harrison and LaMarr Woodley coming off the sides," he said. "You've got to get the ball out of your hand."

Warner and Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers are close friends, and they spoke last week on a number of topics. I wouldn't be surprised if this one came up. The Packers, as you might know, used at least three receivers on 75 percent of their dropbacks this season. They also used a five-receiver set 30 times during the regular season, twice the number of the other 31 teams combined.

We've already touched on the Packers' indoor passing fancy during the Rodgers era and we'll touch on it from any number of additional angles as the week progresses. But Warner's point is a valid one: The Packers have the personnel to spread out the Steelers' defense. They had four receivers -- Greg Jennings, Donald Driver, James Jones and Jordy Nelson -- who finished the regular season with at least 45 receptions. Can they be as successful as Warner was two years ago? Stay tuned.

As we continue to look back on our preseason NFC North themes, let's examine how one of our most vigorous discussions turned out.

The Bears denied initial concerns that tight end Greg Olsen would be minimized in offensive coordinator Mike Martz's scheme, which had traditionally used tight ends more as an extra lineman than a receiver. As we noted many times, no tight end had caught more than 38 passes or scored more than six touchdowns in a season under Martz. Similar numbers in 2010 would have qualified as poor use of resources, and I suggested that Martz would find a way to get Olsen more involved than that.

In the end, Olsen exceeded that high mark by three receptions. On the other hand, Olsen's 41 catches were his lowest total since his rookie season. He scored five touchdowns, one off the high in a Martz offense and tied for the second-most in his career. According to ESPN Stats & Information, Olsen was targeted for 67 passes, tied for the 16th-most among NFL tight ends.

Keep in mind that Martz pulled back significantly on the passing game at midseason, and Bears quarterbacks combined for a total of 466 attempts. For context, consider that in his final full season with Martz in St. Louis, Kurt Warner threw 546 passes. Marc Bulger threw 532 passes in 15 games in 2003, and Jon Kitna threw 596 and 561, respectively, while with the Detroit Lions in 2006 and 2007.

In the end, Olsen wasn't as productive as he had been in previous seasons. But given the system foisted on him, and the midseason adjustments made beyond that, I would consider a 41-catch season a success. You?

After the Green Bay Packers' 31-3 victory over the Minnesota Vikings, here are three issues that merit further examination:

1. If anything was holding back quarterback Aaron Rodgers earlier this season, it seems gone now. In his past two games, Rodgers has completed 75.4 percent of his passes for 590 yards and seven touchdowns with no interceptions. That's good for a 138.6 passer rating. Most importantly, the Packers have won those two games by a combined score of 76-10. Rodgers' personal statistics have not always corresponded with the team's win-loss percentage, but he has clearly been a driving force in the Packers' four-game winning streak. From a personal standpoint, here is one more superlative: Sunday was the eighth game in Rodgers' career in which he has thrown three or more touchdown passes without an interception. According to the Elias Sports Bureau, only two other players have as many games in that category within three seasons of their first NFL start: Kurt Warner (nine) and Tom Brady (eight).
2. This is getting interesting. After limiting the Vikings to three points, the Packers' defense is now holding opponents to an average of 14.6 points per game. That figure pulls them into a tie with the Chicago Bears for the lowest mark in the NFL. (Bears fans would note the Vikings lost a 51-yard field goal because of a holding penalty, but facts are facts.) It's almost become a cliché, but the Packers' defense really is playing lights-out football. In their past three games, opponents have scored zero, seven and three points. Packers coach Mike McCarthy is so confident in them that he deferred the kickoff to the second half after winning the coin toss Sunday. Coordinator Dom Capers is mixing up schemes and coverages as well as anyone in the league. And I think it's also time to start considering the Pro Bowl candidacies of at least four Packers defenders: Nose tackle B.J. Raji, linebacker Clay Matthews, and cornerbacks Charles Woodson and Tramon Williams. Would you add anyone else to the list?
3. Two months after signing him from the Atlanta Falcons' practice squad, the Packers finally got rookie tailback Dimitri Nance involved. Nance carried 12 times for 37 yards, including a nice first-quarter bulldozing of Vikings linebacker E.J. Henderson, and seemed to establish himself as the Packers' No. 2 tailback behind starter Brandon Jackson. "It was time really to get him going and give him some opportunities," McCarthy said. "We need to continue to grow with him and Brandon. I was pleased to finally get that rotation going." I would imagine that John Kuhn will continue to get some touches, particularly in short-yardage situations, but Nance has livelier legs and would be a nice second-half addition to the Packers' offense.

And here is one issue I don't get:

Why are we even calling this a rivalry? The Packers have won seven of their past 10 meetings with the Vikings, dating back to the start of the McCarthy era. Obviously, two of the three losses came in Brett Favre's so-called "revenge" games. What's more, the Packers have built a team around young(er), elite players who seem to have this franchise positioned for long-term competitiveness. The Vikings, on the other hand, have swung and missed at a short-term Super Bowl run with Favre and a host of aging veterans. Anything could happen, but at this point it's hard to predict anything other than more of the same in the Packers-Vikings matchup.

Dead leaves, seaweed, rotten eggs, too.
Stir them in my witches' brew.
I got magic! Alakazamakazoo.
Spider web, moldy bread, mucky mud, too.
Stir them in my witches' brew.
I got magic! Alakazamakazoo.

Hopefully kids these days are still singing "Witches' Brew" in school. For some reason, it's what popped in my head Sunday night while watching Chicago Bears quarterback Jay Cutler absorb nine sacks in the first half of a 17-3 loss to the New York Giants. That unprecedented total seemed to be the result of four frightening ingredients tossed into a simmering black cauldron.

(Thus ends our corny Halloween imagery. For now.)

In one night at the New Meadowlands Stadium, you had:

1. An offensive scheme with a long history of allowing high sack totals.
2. A quarterback who has taken the 10th-most sacks in the NFL since becoming a full-time starter.
3. Four moving parts on the five-man offensive line.
4. An opponent with athletic and speedy pass-rushers along its defensive line.

Not every Bears opponent this season will have pass-rushers like the Giants' Justin Tuck and Osi Umenyiora, each of whom notched three sacks Sunday night. Unfortunately, the other three factors are all embedded in the Bears' dilemma.

Like coach Lovie Smith, I'm not ready to panic just yet -- not when the Bears' defense is playing at such a high level and their special teams are showing some big-play signs. But the events Sunday night raise some fair questions: Is Mike Martz's scheme, Cutler's decision-making and a torn-up offensive line a combustible combination? Are the Bears deeply vulnerable to teams with decent pass rushes? Or are there ways to smooth the edges?

"We played four games and we lost one," Smith told reporters Monday. "Let's not panic around here, all right? The reality is we're 3-1 with this group. Our offense has done a lot of good things. [Sunday] night, we didn't get it done. We didn't get it done. No more than that."

Let's take a deeper look at the individual factors involved. The first chart tracks the sack numbers and context for the 11 NFL offenses Martz has either coordinated or been the head coach of. As you can see, each of the past eight has ranked in the bottom third of the NFL for most sacks allowed. The trend has spanned four franchises and five primary quarterbacks, leaving little doubt about its genesis.

The reason is simple, says Matt Williamson of Scouts Inc. "Martz likes to get as many pass-catchers into routes as possible," Williamson said. "He has a lot of seven-step drops and long-developing route combinations."

In short, quarterbacks in the Martz scheme often need more time to let plays develop. Good protection puts them in position to make lots of big plays, but adjustments are necessary when pass-rushers have the upper hand. The scheme can shift to shorter drops and quicker routes, as it did Sept. 19 against the Dallas Cowboys, but it requires quicker decisions from the quarterback.

Which brings us to our second point. Since he became the Denver Broncos' full-time starter in 2007, Cutler has taken 90 sacks. As you can see in the second chart, that ranks him ninth among all NFL quarterbacks over that span. But since it also includes an anomalous 11-sack season in 2008, I put together a third chart that shows where he has ranked among the league's most-sacked quarterbacks in his other three seasons as a full-time starter.

Close observers know that Cutler is quick-footed and mobile. A more likely explanation, then, is a tendency to hold the ball too long and/or take a sack rather than throw the ball away.

Speaking Monday on ESPN radio, former NFL quarterback Kurt Warner -- Martz's star pupil with the St. Louis Rams -- emphasized the importance of Cutler quickening his release and decision-making.

"[The Bears] are going to keep the pedal down, they're going to continue to take chances," Warner said. "But so much of it as a quarterback is just making quick decisions, understanding what's going on up front and that you can't sit back and just wait for the big play every time. Sometimes you've just got to say it's not there initially, let's just get the ball out of my hands and let somebody else do something with it."

According to Brad Biggs of the Chicago Tribune, the Bears' coaching staff attributed three of Sunday night's sacks to Cutler holding the ball too long. Four were the result of offensive linemen simply losing their one-on-one matchup, and three others were put on tight ends failing to make their blocks.

You could blame Martz for leaving tight ends to block defensive ends, even if it's 300-pound Brandon Manumaleuna. But the larger issue is his scheme requires a steady group of offensive linemen who on average will win their one-on-one battles.

But Martz doesn't have that with the Bears. Left tackle Chris Williams hasn't played since suffering a significant hamstring injury Sept. 19. Right guard Lance Louis departed Sunday night's game with a knee injury, and the Bears have rotated two inexperienced players -- J'Marcus Webb and Edwin Williams -- into the mix.

In all, eight different offensive linemen have seen significant playing time through four games. The only starter who has played every snap at his original position is center Olin Kreutz.

Such upheaval makes it easy to understand why Giants players were slicing through the Bears' line Sunday night. There are no shortcuts to building a cohesive offensive line. I'm quite sure the Bears would prefer to identify five full-time starters and continue playing them, but at this point it hasn't been an option.

"There were a lot of things that were unacceptable from that game," Smith said. "I'll put the offensive line in there. But it's not just the offensive line. We gave up a lot of sacks, and that was spread out. Some of it was the offensive line, the tight ends and running backs had something to do with it, and also Jay. It's a combination of all of those."

I supported Martz's candidacy for this job and still think hiring him was the best the Bears could have done under the circumstances. They won their first three games with this offense and have the capacity to win many more. But they would also be foolish to consider Sunday night's performance an aberration.

Like it or not, the Bears are saddled with a witch's brew of spider webs, moldy bread and mucky mud. A combination of ingredients went into the cauldron, and it will take a blend of solutions to sweeten the taste. Or something like that. You get my drift.

Somehow during this week's SportsNation chat, we got around to a question that surely has been burning a hole in your brain. Chris of Bethlehem, Ga., asked which NFC North quarterback -- the Chicago Bears' Jay Cutler or Matthew Stafford of the Detroit Lions -- would throw more interceptions in 2010.

Cutler threw an NFL-high 26 in 16 games last season. Stafford had 20 in 10 games. I went with Stafford but quickly got challenged. Here was the exchange:

Stephen (Troy, MI)

Kevin, you really think Stafford will throw 26 interceptions? Cuz that is about how many he will need to have more than Cutler. Stafford has an equal O-line, better WR's, better RB and probably equal to better TE's. The surrounding cast is what I would look to, which is why I say 18 for Stafford and 25 for Cutler.

Kevin Seifert (2:52 PM)

Well, it's all just funny numbers because we're not actually playing games. But if you're going off last year's numbers, it's true that Cutler had 26 last year in 16 games. But Stafford had 20 in 10 games. According to my calculations, that's 32 INTs over 16 games. So Stafford definitely has the past history to suggest he'll have more than Cutler this year.

I'm not backing away from that sentiment but am willing to throw it out to the cyberfloor, Have at It style. Remember, Cutler threw 37 interceptions in his first 37 NFL starts before arriving in Chicago last year. It's also fair to point out that some quarterbacks have racked up high interception totals in the scheme of new Bears offensive coordinator Mike Martz. None other than Kurt Warner, in fact, threw 51 in a 34-game stretch while playing for St. Louis from 2000-02.

So let me know what you think and why. Will Cutler prove last season to be an aberration? Will Stafford make a major jump? Both? Neither? I'll publish a representative sample of your opinions, along with a fuller explanation of my own, by the end of the week. Have at It.

News tends to trickle at the end of an NFL rookie minicamp, and I'll have a more complete set of wrap-up links on Monday morning. But corporate cousin Jeff Dickerson of ESPNChicago.com passed along an interesting set of scenarios Sunday from the final day of Bears camp.

In a nutshell: Offensive coordinator Mike Martz appeared much more concerned about his team's quarterback depth than he was about the Bears' receiving corps. Here's what he said about the lack of experience behind starter Jay Cutler:

"It makes you a little nervous, doesn't it? I think Caleb [Hanie] is going to be a good player, but I really don't know. I'm excited about him, but I really don't know. You look at a guy like Kurt Warner, he played in [NFL] Europe, and we looked at all of his Europe stuff, so we kind of had a feel for him under pressure, blitzes and things like that.

"I think Caleb will be all right, but [potentially adding a veteran] gives you that insurance, pads it a little bit. From that aspect, I think it would make us all feel a little easier with a veteran. But you just never know."

On the other hand, here's what Martz said about a receiving group that is talented but largely inexperienced: "I love our receivers, I think that our receiving core will be the strength of this team," Martz said. "You can put that in granite, I can promise you that one."

Translation: Look for the Bears to give strong thought to signing a veteran quarterback. And if you hoped they would add a receiver from elsewhere, don't count on it.

ORLANDO, Fla. -- The numbers and images are seared into the brain of everyone who played, watched or endured them:

• 88
• 847
• 8

Those figures represent the number of points, net passing yards and touchdown passes Green Bay gave up in two memorable shootouts during a four-week span last season. Both were losses, and one -- a 51-45 wild-card playoff defeat at Arizona -- ended Green Bay's year. So as I reviewed the Packers' offseason activity en route to the NFL owners meetings, one question kept recurring: What have they done to address those defensive collapses?

Green Bay has made substantial commitments to keep its roster intact, from re-signing nose tackle Ryan Pickett to extending the contract of Pro Bowl safety Nick Collins. I believe those moves were preferable to the alternative. And it should be no surprise that Packers general manager Ted Thompson chose that route over adding veteran free agents from the outside.

But with the Packers' personnel largely unchanged, I think it's fair to ask how the Packers plan to fix the problems that arose against the Cardinals in the playoffs and in Week 15 at Pittsburgh. In speaking with Thompson and coach Mike McCarthy, it seems clear the Packers won't overreact to the events in 2/17ths of their games. They are counting on the return of some players who were injured and thus unavailable to play against the Steelers and Cardinals, and they are planning some practice changes they hope will address the roots of the poor play.

But if you were expecting a dramatic scheme adjustment or hoping for an infusion of experienced personnel, I'm sorry. It's not going to happen.

"We went through all of the specifics with the coaches and they do all of their evaluations of what happened here and what happened there," Thompson said. "At the end of the day, we did get in a couple shootouts. On the good side, we had the kind of offense that could stay with the other team in a shootout, and it really was 50-50 who was going to win the game at the end in both of those games.

"But I don't think you can necessarily discount the fact that we played really good pass defense and overall defense in most other games. There are things that happen during the course of a game, you get off on the wrong foot, especially towards the end of a season, [and] you're playing guys in sub packages that weren't on your team to start the season.

"I'm not trying to make excuses. ... There just becomes a wearing away of the quality you put on the field."

Thompson's response covered two of our three primary points. By the time they arrived Dec. 20 in Pittsburgh, the Packers had lost three cornerbacks they were counting on to play significantly at that point: Starter Al Harris and reserves Will Blackmon and Pat Lee. Blackmon and Lee should be ready for the start of training camp, while Harris could also return then or shortly thereafter.

There is also a high likelihood the Packers will prioritize cornerback and safety depth in next month's draft, perhaps with the No. 23 overall pick.

It is also accurate to say Green Bay's pass defense played much better in its other 15 games than it did against the Steelers and Cardinals. The only other quarterback who hurt them over that span was Minnesota's Brett Favre, who threw seven touchdown passes in two games against them.

To illustrate the dichotomy, check out the chart below. It compares the Packers' pass defense against Arizona, Pittsburgh and the rest of its schedule.


You can't discount those numbers, and I think the Packers can use them to make a decent case for fine-tuning their fix rather than overhauling personnel or their schematic approach. I've written that there's no shame in giving up yards to elite quarterbacks like Favre, Kurt Warner and Ben Roethlisberger. But it's only fair to add this caveat: You're far more likely to face elite quarterbacks in the playoffs, and you'll need to at least slow them if you want to advance.

So what will the Packers do? McCarthy said pass defense will be an offseason "emphasis" and plans to present defensive players with two priorities during the offseason: improving their tackling and handling adversity.

Without a doubt, the Packers exacerbated their coverage problems against the Cardinals by allowing receivers to extend their yardage after the catch. That was especially true on touchdown passes to receivers Larry Fitzgerald and Early Doucet.

McCarthy stopped short of saying he will conduct live tackling drills during training camp but said: "There are some things we can do to improve that in our drill work, and that's what will be done."

Improving reactions to adversity is a less tangible task. McCarthy's plan is to increase the amount of game situations he presents in practice -- for example, presenting a difficult down-and-distance during 11-on-11 drills -- to cultivate a bigger comfort zone in stressful environments.

In theory, the emphasis would help the two-minute defense that collapsed in the final minutes at Pittsburgh, culminating in Roethlisberger's game-winning 19-yard touchdown pass on the final play.

"There are aspects that we're going to try to improve upon," McCarthy said. "... The productivity we had throughout the defense was a vast improvement over what we've done in the past, but those are two areas we're going to really emphasize. ... You'll see some drills and things, situations and an emphasis that will be applied to highlight the defense."

Will it be enough? There is a fine line between an aggressive fix and avoiding overreaction. The Packers are leaning toward the latter.

I asked. You responded. Me appreciate.

I got to as many of your questions and comments as time and space would allow. Some have been put aside for future posts. Remember, you can keep the interaction flowing through the mailbag portal, Facebook or Twitter. On a clear night, I might also hear you via short-wave radio.

Let’s get to it:

Dan of Bloomington, Ind., writes: The Lions obviously need running back help due to Kevin Smith's injury and general lack of production last year, whether that was shoulder-related or not. LaDainian Tomlinson thinks he's done in San Diego and probably still thinks he has starting talent. Any chance he could end up in Detroit next year, since I doubt many other teams could give him the playing time he'll want? Outside of the draft is there any reasonable talent out there they could look at in free agency or through a trade? There just seem to be too many holes to fill to use a pick on another RB at this point.

Kevin Seifert: The question is whether Tomlinson deserves the playing time he wants. Over the past two seasons, he’s averaged 3.57 yards per carry. He’ll be 31 when training camp begins and already has 2,880 carries over his career. Just because Detroit has a need at running back doesn’t mean Tomlinson is the right player to fill it.

My own amateur opinion: Tomlinson should be careful about putting himself in a position where he might not deliver. The Chargers know him better than anyone else. If they don’t think he can be their No. 1 back any longer, that’s a pretty significant warning sign.

To me, the best situation for Tomlinson is a team with an established starter. In that scenario, he would serve as a backup that gets 6-10 carries per game and also play on third downs. Don’t forget, Tomlinson has averaged almost 60 catches per season in San Diego. He could make a huge impact in that kind of controlled scenario.

In fact, if we’re going to limit this conversation to the NFC North, here’s a pretty interesting possibility: Tomlinson signs with Minnesota and takes over the role vacated by Chester Taylor. And where might Taylor vacate to? Why not Detroit, where he grew up? Like Tomlinson, Taylor is 31. But he has much less mileage on his body -- nearly 1,800 less carries, in fact -- and would be an ideal insurance short-term answer for the Lions as Smith rehabilitates his knee and shoulder injuries.

I don’t necessarily think a free agent signing would absolve the Lions from drafting a running back. You don’t need to spend a first- or second-round pick at that position to get immediate productivity, and often mid-round running backs can help you on special teams as well.

Could we see a Taylor-to-Detroit scenario coupled with a Tomlinson-to-Minnesota union? It’s awfully NFC North-centric, but it makes sense on a number of levels.

---

Via the comments section, natesweet72 writes: Do you think there is any chance that the Bears would get rid of their turf and go for one of the new synthetic turf systems? It seems like it would benefit the offense and the defense as well. I can recall quite a few plays on that torn-up sod where the players’ legs just slid right out. No traction at all. What do you think?

Kevin Seifert: First things first: The Bears’ opponents face the same conditions. In theory, at least, the Bears should be more accustomed to the dirt and therefore gain some level of advantage.

But I, for one, don’t think that advantage translates into a net gain for the Bears. The annual deterioration of the grass at Soldier Field limits their performance, especially on offense, and could be a pretty big deal for new offensive coordinator Mike Martz’s scheme.

I don’t really have a stake in this, but I would strongly be in favor of replacing the grass at Soldier Field with the latest generation of infill surfaces. Green Bay has a grass-turf combination, but the multiple uses of Soldier Field probably makes a fully artificial surface the best way to go.

Dan Pompei of the Chicago Tribune has reported it would take about $1.5 million to pay for the switch, money that ostensibly would come from the Chicago Park District. But it would pay for itself in the long run by eliminating the need to re-sod the field during the season at $200,000 a pop.

Such transformations can happen in a matter of weeks, so there is no rush to get this done now. But I’ll be surprised and a bit disappointed if it isn’t discussed in a substantive way this offseason.

---

Derek of Black River Falls, Wis., writes: Hey Kevin, enjoyed reading your blog all year. Would like to hear your opinion on who should the Green Bay Packers should draft with their first round pick? With so much talent we got from the first round last year with B.J. Raji and Clay Matthews, I feel that our pick is very critical to the success in the 2010-2011 campaign. So much talk has gone into that our cornerbacks are old and need replacements but our offensive line is just terrible. Is there going to be a franchise tackle left when the Packers pick?

Kevin Seifert: Thanks, Derek, and I like your inclusion of “2011” as part of your description of next season. Optimism! Anyway, it’s awfully early to start lining up candidates for the Packers’ No. 23 overall pick. But I like what Mel Kiper had in his Mock Draft 2.0 this week: Iowa left tackle Bryan Bulaga.

Elite left tackles are hard to find, and next week’s scouting combine will give us a better idea of whether Bulaga deserves to be in that category. If he is a true blue-chip player, it’s doubtful he’ll last until the No. 23 overall pick.

In the long-term, I agree that launching a succession plan at both tackle positions should be the highest of priorities for the Packers. We’ll continue this discussion below.

---

Paul of Cologne, Germany, writes: As a Packers fan, the off-season for me is all about fixing our O-line problems. Not only for the coming season, but for the future in general. And yet I have to think a lot about our secondary. In games like Arizona, Pittsburgh and of course the Vikings, we were buried by the so called “elite” quarterbacks.

Isn't getting the secondary fixed as important as giving Aaron Rodgers more time in the pocket? What's the point in rolling over the majority of teams in the regular season, when we can only win in the playoffs by outscoring our opponents?

Kevin Seifert: I’m happy we can juxtapose this question with the one above it, if for no other reason than to show that reasonable arguments can be made on both sides of a debate. I agree on this level: The Packers need to improve their pass defense from last season. There’s no shame in giving up yards to the likes of Kurt Warner, Ben Roethlisberger and Brett Favre. But a good defense should at least slow them down or force enough turnovers to end some drives.

And it’s true that the Packers have two cornerbacks, Charles Woodson and Al Harris, who are at least in the second half of their careers. But I think the Packers have more options to improve their personnel from within at this position than at offensive line.

First, Woodson might be 33, but last year proved he is still at the very top of his game. Harris, 35, is rehabilitating from a serious knee injury, but the Packers already have a credible replacement for him in Tramon Williams. They should get Will Blackmon and Pat Lee back from injuries in time for training camp, and 2009 draft pick Brandon Underwood will have a year of experience under his belt.

This doesn’t minimize the need to continue upgrading depth in the secondary, but if I were making a priority list based on the Packers’ existing assets, I would put offensive tackle ahead of cornerback.

MIAMI -- Now that Chicago has hired Mike Martz as its offensive coordinator, the next question becomes whom it will hire as defensive coordinator.

Bears general manager Jerry Angelo admitted during a conference call with reporters that filling both positions at the same time proved overly complicated, so the offensive job was prioritized. Bob LeGere of the Daily Herald has more on that.

To anyone’s knowledge, the only candidate interviewed for the job has been Perry Fewell, who ultimately took a similar position with the New York Giants. Coach Lovie Smith said he has ruled out no candidates, raising speculation he could promote defensive line coach Rod Marinelli or defensive backs coach Jon Hoke.

But based on the way the Bears conducted their search for Martz, it seems likely there will be other interviews. Stay tuned.

For now, let’s take a spin around the division:

• Newly retired quarterback Kurt Warner said “it’s going to take some time” for Bears quarterback Jay Cutler to adapt to the way Martz runs an offense. But “in the long run, the stuff he teaches makes a quarterback better,” Warner said, according to Sean Jensen of the Chicago Sun-Times.
• Although the tight end hasn’t always been a big part of Martz’s passing games, Bears incumbent Greg Olsen will have a big role, according to Vaughn McClure and Brad Biggs of the Chicago Tribune.
• Behind-the-scenes drama is always a possibility with Martz, writes Melissa Isaacson of ESPN Chicago.
• Green Bay might not be among the teams asking assistant coaches to take a wage reduction in the event of a 2011 lockout, according to Pete Dougherty of the Green Bay Press-Gazette.
• Carlos Monarrez of the Detroit Free Press wonders if the Lions could draft Idaho guard Mike Iupati with the No. 34 overall pick in the 2010 draft.
• Martz’s arrival in Chicago means Minnesota will retain quarterbacks coach Kevin Rogers, notes Judd Zulgad of the Star Tribune.
• A special master denied the NFL’s attempt to eliminate its secondary revenue sharing program, according to ESPN’s Chris Mortensen. The league will appeal, but for now, that means Minnesota won’t lose a revenue stream that can top $10 million.

On behalf of the entire NFC North, I’d like to congratulate Arizona quarterback Kurt Warner on his retirement.

Kurt, we’ll miss your appearances at mini-camp and organized training activities. Your move to the “Reserve-retired” list will be emotional and sudden.

We in the Black and Blue division fully understand that you can’t fathom the thought of playing another season. Alas, it will be a long six months until the itch returns.

Retirement, as we here in the NFC North know it, is a blessing and a curse. Enjoy it -- and we’ll see you in August.

On Sunday, Minnesota coordinator Leslie Frazier’s defense produced the most dominating performance of the NFL playoffs. Monday, rumors emerged that Frazier had been passed over for another head coaching job -- the seventh such instance in the past three years.

And on Tuesday it became official: Buffalo hired coaching retread Chan Gailey to replace the fired Dick Jauron. Frazier interviewed two weeks ago for the job, but the Bills reportedly preferred a candidate with an offensive background. Unless another job opens this offseason, Frazier will remain the NFL’s most qualified head-coach-in-waiting.

In a league that covets hot coordinators, it’s difficult to understand why Frazier has yet to take that final step. He has overseen a defense that finished among the NFL’s top 10 for consecutive seasons, the first time that’s happened for the Vikings in nearly two decades, and has classic head-coaching credentials with Super Bowl championships as a player (Chicago, 1986) and assistant coach (Indianapolis, 2006).

Former Colts coach Tony Dungy, in fact, is said to consider Frazier his likely head coach if he re-joins the NFL as a team president. Until then, however, the Bills’ loss is the Vikings’ gain. Frazier said recently he has too much on his plate to be either disappointed or to be anticipating his next opportunity.

“I’d like to get a third ring,” he said, “and it’s not hard for me to move on beyond that. It’s not hard at all. I promise you. These opportunities are so rare in the National Football League for players and coaches and for me. Just to be in this situation and know that we’re just a couple games from reaching our goal as a team, no, it’s not hard.”

Frazier will spend Tuesday crafting a game plan for the NFC Championship Game, one he hopes will slow down New Orleans the way his team dismantled Dallas last Sunday. The Vikings’ “Maul of America” defense (Thanks!) held the Cowboys to a season-low in points (three), yards (248) and first downs (16) in a 34-3 victory at the Metrodome.

While Frazier works out those details, let’s take a moment to understand how he’s impacted the Vikings' run to the brink of Super Bowl XLIV.

Subtle scheming

Sometimes I think the perception of Frazier’s role gets diminished in the star power of Minnesota’s personnel. The Vikings, after all, have an elite defensive line and, when healthy, one of the league’s best cornerbacks in Antoine Winfield.

And it’s true: Frazier makes no attempt to be a mastermind schemer, the type that plays a 4-3 one week and a 1-5 the next. The Vikings mostly employ Cover 2 in the back end and occasionally mix in a blitz. This season, according to ESPN Stats & Information, the Vikings sent at least one additional pass-rusher on 30.1 percent of their defensive snaps. That figure was the 10th-lowest in the NFL.

“The key is small menu, big understanding [from players],” coach Brad Childress said. “That is the thing we pride ourselves on.”

Still, Frazier’s strategic fingerprints can be seen if you look closely enough. Last season, he made a subtle change in the way his defensive backs lined up pre-snap during a game at Arizona. The shift befuddled Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner, who threw an interception, took four sacks and finished with a 78.9 passer rating in the Vikings’ 35-14 victory.

Against the Cowboys, Frazier extended the Vikings’ time window for getting lined up before the snap to enhance their ability to disguise coverages. According to several players, Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo repeatedly waited for the Vikings to “show” before typically snapping the ball in frustration and panic. Romo committed three turnovers in the game.

“Our coaches did a great job of getting us ready for this game,” Winfield said. “We knew what they were going to do more than [the other way around].”

Assisting the head coach

Childress made Frazier his assistant head coach in 2008 after he made positive impressions during job interviews with Miami and Atlanta. That title is typically ceremonial, but Childress leans on Frazier for advice and counsel more than you might realize.

When the Vikings were having trouble signing a veteran quarterback to pair with Tarvaris Jackson two years ago, Childress honed in on the nearly-retired Gus Frerotte. Before pursuing him, however, Childress asked Frazier to evaluate game tape to determine whether Frerotte’s arm strength made him a viable candidate for the job. Frazier concurred, and Frerotte led the Vikings to an 8-4 record as a starter last season.

Childress and Frazier can occasionally be seen huddling on the sidelines prior to a significant game management decision. And when Childress was recruiting Brett Favre last spring, he sent Frazier to Mississippi for a quiet one-on-one meeting with Favre. It isn’t often that a defensive coordinator gets involved in signing free agent quarterbacks, but at the time Frazier said: “It was to answer any questions he had, and for him to hear from a different voice, that wasn't offensive-oriented and could come at him from a different slant and try to convey to him a different message.”

Handling adversity

The Vikings were the NFL’s sixth-ranked defense in each of the past two years despite losing middle linebacker E.J. Henderson to season-ending injuries. Frazier navigated the loss by elevating a backup (Napoleon Harris in 2008, Jasper Brinkley in 2009) but shifting play-calling duties to outside linebacker Ben Leber.

Winfield, meanwhile, missed six games because of a sprained foot and was not 100 percent upon returning last month. After watching Winfield struggle to chase receivers for two games, Frazier made the difficult decision to shift him to nickel back and use Benny Sapp as his starter on the outside.

It all came together Sunday at the Metrodome, where the Vikings defense turned in a performance better than any other this season.

“We’ve had some good outings on defense,” Frazier said. “But the setting and the scenario made this the best. … A lot of things went right. You want it to go right another week, and then another week, and then we’ll be some pretty happy dudes.”

Head coach or otherwise.

It sounds like Green Bay coach Mike McCarthy will address our primary question from Monday’s edition of “Third and one,” where we suggested the Packers’ top offseason priority should be to figure out why they were unable to so much as slow down the elite quarterbacks they faced this season.

Indeed, in four games this year, Brett Favre, Ben Roethlisberger and Kurt Warner combined for a 140.2 passer rating. They completed 71.7 percent of their passes for 15 touchdowns and no interceptions. Speaking to Wisconsin media Wednesday, McCarthy said he considered the Packers’ performance against Favre to be a result of growing pains in their new 3-4 defense. But Roethlisberger and Warner?

“Trust me,” McCarthy said. “We’ll take a long look at Arizona from a defensive standpoint, and Pittsburgh. You’re talking about over 1,000 yards of offensive production in two days. We will take a long look at that, and particularly the quarterbacks.”

As of Wednesday morning, McCarthy said he had not watched the full tape of Sunday’s loss at Arizona. He said he would watch it soon, however, because “[t]here's some things that I'll want answers to questions just over the next couple of days.”

But from his recollection Sunday, McCarthy said the defense’s “biggest issues” were poor fundamentals. He said the Packers busted a coverage on Arizona’s first third-down play of the game and “were a poor tackling unit” all game.

Were those comments directed at defensive coordinator Dom Capers? I don’t think so, although McCarthy did say: “We’ll be very critical of ourselves from a coaching standpoint” when the film is reviewed. But as McCarthy pointed out, the Packers seem to be in a better defensive place than they were last year at this time.

“We definitely improved in the areas we set out to from last year to this year, and the coaching is a big part of that,” he said.

I think it’s pretty clear the Packers need to continue developing their depth in the secondary, where two key reserves -- Pat Lee and Will Blackmon -- ended the season on injured reserve. I’m sure they’ll also examine whether the Steelers and Cardinals might have exposed some schematic flaws that accelerated their production.

After Green Bay’s 51-45 wild-card playoff loss at Arizona, here are three (mostly) indisputable facts I feel relatively sure about:

1. Quarterback Aaron Rodgers offered up an interesting detail in explaining his interception on the Packers’ first play of the game. According to Rodgers, tight ends Donald Lee and Jermichael Finley ran the same pattern. “We had a little bit of miscommunication,” Rodgers said. But Rodgers added to the mistake by trying to make something of the play rather than scrapping it and moving on to second down. He bought some time for Finley to clear the area and then threw toward Lee, who Rodgers said he thought was going to come back toward the ball. Instead, linebacker Karlos Dansby tipped the ball into the air and cornerback Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie made the interception. “We were just on different pages,” Rodgers said. “Definitely a poor decision on my part.”
2. You have to wonder if we’ve seen the last of a Packers offensive line that includes Chad Clifton at left tackle and Mark Tauscher on the right side. Tauscher is 32, Clifton is 33 and both players will be free agents. It was interesting that Rodgers mentioned both players while noting that rosters change from year to year. Rookie T.J. Lang replaced Clifton after he departed Sunday’s game with a sprained ankle, and the Packers sure seem to have groomed him for a starting role -- at either left or right tackle -- in 2010.
3. I want to take a longer look at this later in the week, but is there any doubt that Finley has -- at the very least -- brought himself up to an equal threat with receivers Greg Jennings and Donald Driver? Finely caught six passes for 159 yards, the second-highest postseason yardage total in NFL history for a tight end, and was Rodgers most-favored target for the latter half of the season. Finley has changed the Packers offense, and we’ll take a look later this week.

And here is one question I’m still asking:

What is an acceptable amount of production to give up against elite quarterbacks? As we noted Sunday, there is no shame in losing an aerial battle to the likes of Kurt Warner, Brett Favre and Ben Roethlisberger. But here is what those three quarterbacks combined for in four games against the Packers this season: 99 completions in 138 attempts (71.7. percent) for 1,397 yards, 15 touchdowns and no interceptions. That works out to a passer rating of 140.2. It’s one thing to get beat by top quarterbacks, but it’s another to be gashed as if there is no resistance. I’m not sure where that dividing line is, but I’m pretty sure the Packers were at the wrong end of it this season. In-game adjustments seemed scarce at best. The team’s inability to so much as slow down top-level passing attacks must be a top offseason priority.