What a weird bag, folks. I don’t know what’s going on, whether it’s the dog days of the football season, a post-election freak out or just that time of the month, but we’re all over the place this week.

Not that you won’t recognize some of the material. We feed my seemingly insatiable appetite for Patriots payroll talk, for example. And since I also appear to have an obsession with gay humor, we spend some time strolling down a very peculiarly named street. There’s also a bit of politics. What the hell, it’s a short week.

Otherwise, many topics make their mailbag debut, such as the Lions and why they continue to ruin our Thanksgiving and the whereabouts of that long-lost picture of Eric Mangini’s wife.

Finally, I give you quite a few links. But since I have no idea how to incorporate them into the body of my text like these other young whipper-snappers, I just cut and paste them. Yes, I’m a Neanderthal. Or, if you will, a Jets fan.

--

DB,

Even taking into account the broken leg that he played through in winning last year’s U.S. Open, isn’t it likely that Tiger Woods could make a greater contribution to the Patriots’ defense as Adalius Thomas’s replacement than Pierre Woods?

Scott D. Shuster

A: A little harsh, Scott. Pierre Woods is a pretty good story, a guy who made the team as an undrafted free agent in 2006, played all 16 games in 2007 and every game so far this year. This past preseason he was one of the Pats’ better players, so he’s clearly made strides. But there’s no getting around the fact that the drop-off between Thomas and Woods is huge, and that’s nobody’s fault. There aren’t many guys like Thomas who are 270 pounds and can run like a tight end. Thomas can do so many more things and play so many more roles, but that lost versatility isn’t even the worst of it. It all comes down to the pass rush. Thomas was pressuring the pocket better than any Patriots player not named Richard Seymour so far this year, and there’s just no way to replace his burst and athleticism. If the Patriots are going to surprise people come December and January, they’ll probably need some game-changing plays on defense. Something on the order of what Thomas did to Jets running back Leon Washington and quarterback Brett Favre in Week 2, or what Thomas did to the Rams three weeks ago (eight tackles; two sacks).

Woods figures to be a starter now in the 3-4, but if you’ve been watching the defense recently you’ve seen the Pats haven’t exactly spent a lot of time in their base defense. So it’s possible you won’t see a ton of Woods even if he starts. Perhaps Thomas’ loss will mean more snaps for linemen like Jarvis Green, Mike Wright or Vince Wilfork in passing situations. Maybe the coaches won’t have Seymour on the bench quite so much. Maybe we’ll see the 4-3. In other words, don’t expect Woods to step directly into Thomas’ shoes and play all his responsibilities. It will be divvied up. Again, I’ll be looking to see if anyone can pick up the slack on the rush.  The top candidate should be Mike Vrabel, who hasn’t had a sack since Week 1 and has just one hit on the QB over the past eight games.

--

Hello Mr. Felger,

A couple of weeks ago you said, and I believe this is a direct quote: "BenJarvus Green-Ellis CAN'T PLAY! He looks like an undrafted free agent!" So let's see: You said Matt Cassel can't play and he obviously can; you said Benny Green can't play and he obviously can. Do you ever think before you speak? Do you enjoy looking foolish? You should really do some research and dig a little deeper instead of just shooting off your mouth and hoping to be right. It doesn't make you "edgy’’ it just makes you look like a damn fool.

Drew,

Middleton, RI

A: Some old-school Felger hate. Finally. I'd be happy to be as wrong about "Benny'" as I was about Cassel. But I haven't seen nearly enough to make that determination yet. I still think he's just another guy. As for Cassel, I'd like the record to show that EVERYONE was wrong about him. When I was barking about the backup quarterback situation in August, the counter-argument I'd get was that it didn't matter who the backup is -- if Brady went down the season was over. No one told me that Cassel would be good enough. No one did that research.

--

Felger,

Seriously, what the hell is up with Lamont Jordan? Did his calf get stuck in a wood chipper? I’m ready to give up on him. The team could really use him and he seems to be taking his sweet ass time -- and the same goes for this Lewis Sanders. He was great for the 6 plays we got to see him so far.

Paul

Whitman

A: Who would have thought that the Lewis Sanders injury would actually be a factor? Turns out the Pats could use him. As for Jordan, I have no idea what the deal is. He returned to practice last week but either had a setback or wasn’t ready for the increased workload. But according to Drew, who the hell needs him? We’ve got Benny!

--

Felgy,

Thanks for the praise of the third-dumbest comment in mailbag history last week! Based on your comments with the "not so great" offensive play calling this past week, I think I may have made you a believer in the fact McDaniels is overrated. The whole Ty Law signing with the Jets is great, another chapter of the student trying to out fox the mentor with a 34-year-old chunky corner back. Classic stuff. Please give us one play with him on Moss....McDaniels would probably call a dive to Faulk! Over the weekend, your former paper ran an article that has definitely flown under the radar, regarding the NFLPA rep for the Pats, Mike Vrabel, and the looming CBA. I know I should consider who wrote it (Borges), but some of the comments he made regarding Kraft and his other personal investments, like Patriot Place and crying poor mouth about only getting 60% of the revenue, were way off base. I used to think that Vrabel was a class act. Now he is looking like a spoiled brat. Kraft's investments are none of Vrabel’s business. Vrabel should not comment on his owner’s finances when he is making more than 95% of the fan base, he should just play the game and keep his comments to himself! What is your take on this whole thing?

Pete

N. Attleboro

A: I thought the Borges story was a good one and that Vrabel’s comments were not out of line. Not that I think the players should share in the profits of Patriot Place (they aren't taking on any of the risk; if the project loses money it's not like they’ll be reaching into their pockets to defray costs, so they don’t deserve any of the profits, either), but when you're talking about the economics of the game and the financial health of the owners, how can you not take everything into consideration? If not for the action on the field (i.e., the players), Patriot Place doesn't exist. So it at least belongs on the table. And that speaks to a bigger point Vrabel raised: transparency. Everyone knows exactly what every player makes and what the financial landscape is for the NFLPA. Yet the players don't have the same information about the owners. How can there be an honest and fair negotiation if one side is an open book and the other isn't? Just my two cents on that.

Speaking of Borges, I loved his Ty Law column on Wednesday. Good catty details in there that I either forgot or never heard. You mean the Pats still have cardboard boxes of Eric Mangini’s personal effects? Still? You mean he was never able to get that picture of his wife off his desk? You mean he was refused a seat on the team plane back from the Pats’ playoff loss in Denver in 2005? I have no idea if those things are true or not. Maybe Ron just took some creative license. I just know it was entertaining as hell. At one point in the column, Borges referred to Bill Belichick as Bill Parcells’ "coat holder." I mean, who does that? Only Borgy.

Finally, as for your point on McDaniels, just remember that Belichick still has final say on what the game plan looks like and what plays get called on the field. If he wanted the offense to be more aggressive in certain situations, then McDaniels would call plays that reflected it.

--

Hey Felgy,

I saw a report from USA Today that had every NFL teams payroll for 2008. The Pats payroll is shown to be $92.7 million, which would rank third-lowest in the NFL. The Cap is somewhere around $120 million. If all this is true, doesn't the Patriots organization owe us an explanation why they are about $28 million under the cap when they have the highest ticket price and parking in the league? If this was the Red Sox, we'd be all over them. The Krafts’ deserve the same criticism, if not more. This organization always preaches depth, but Woods, Alexander, Guyton, and O'Neal could have really been upgraded if they spent to the cap. All of a sudden Asante Samuel seems affordable. The link:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2008-11-05-salaries_N.htm

Thanks Felgy

Pete

Bellingham

A: Back to Vrabel's point. As the USA Today story shows, everyone knows what the players make. But no one knows what the teams make. As for the Pats being way down at the bottom of the league in terms of actual cash spent (they're once again within a few million of the $117 million salary cap), I think it's more of a one-year aberration, Pete. Last year, they were near the top in "cash out" thanks to their personnel splurge (Adalius Thomas, Wes Welker, Donte Stallworth, Kelley Washington, Randy Moss, etc) and if you look at Kraft’s ownership over the past 15 years, you'll see they've spent as much as anyone in the league. In fact, the Washington Post had a story this year that had the Pats ranked No. 5 in the NFL in terms of "committed cash" since 2000. I'm sure they look at those figures over time and not the year-to-year snapshots. All that being said, most of you know how I feel about the Pats and their spending. With a few exceptions (last year and 2003 being two of them), I usually feel like they can do more. In other words, I don’t go overboard in crediting them for being one of the league’s top spending teams, because that’s exactly what they should be. Anyway, it certainly doesn’t feel like they treat every offseason the same, and you have to wonder if what they spend in one given year has a bearing on what they do in the next. For example, since they spent so heavily in 2007, did that factor into their lack of aggressiveness this year, when every one of their free agents was signed at or near the veteran minimum? Remember, in 2007 the Pats created salary cap room by restructuring Tom Brady's base salary so they could sign Thomas and go after virtually every good receiver on the market. This year, they didn’t touch Brady’s deal (or any one else’s of consequence that we know about) while letting Asante Samuel walk and basically sitting out free agency. Why such a big disparity between the two offseasons?

--

Felger,

I know this is way too early to start the speculation on free agents, but who are some of the big names you think the Pats would be interested in? Seems that in the Belichick era they are busy every other year. Also, I've heard you mention you're a Pearl Jam fan. Give me your top five songs.

Mo

Watertown

A: There are some very interesting names coming in free agency, but I have no gauge on the Pats’ interest-level or what kind of spending mood they will be in. Times are tough, after all. And, remember, these lists always change because of franchise tags and early extensions. But just for the sake of it, here are some of the big-ticket items: Julius Peppers, Albert Haynesworth, Nnamdi Asomugha, Tommie Harris, Will Smith, TJ Houshmandzadeh, Terrence Newman, Ken Hamlin, Karlos Dansby. I leave running backs like Steven Jackson, Marion Barber and Brandon Jacobs off the list because I'd hate to see the Pats spend big dollars at that position when there are needs on defense. Ditto for pending free agent receivers like Terrell Owens (insert punch line here) and Lee Evans. On the other hand, I've always loved Houshmandzadeh. He'd be a beast in this offense. As for your other question: Glorified G. Off He Goes. Marker in the Sand. Faithful. Black.

--

Subj: Carrying the torch

Michael,

Big fan here. I liked it when you had a regular slot down the dial but enjoy having you writing and back on WEEI. I especially like when you are paired with Dale (the only time I can listen to The View). I can barely imagine what it must be like to go through life as Michael Felger, the unwarranted abuse. I recently joined the message board at Boston Sports Media Watch -- needless to say, the handle of miniFelger created a storm of controversy. When I dared question the leadership/decisions of Bill B. an avalanche of vitriol was directed at me. It didn't take long for the thought police to put a gag on me…Keep up the good work. I continue to look to you for inspiration.

miniFelger

A: Yikes.

--

Felgy,

Concerning Mike Vrabel, it was fun when BB used him at the goal line to catch passes, but now I see him out there on short yardage situations all over the field. Isn't there some backup lineman who isn't as crucial to the team as Vrabel who fit into that spot? I think BB out smarts himself using star players in too many spots and risking injuries. Did you see Bruschi get leveled near the end of the game on the onside kick? It looked like he barely got up. The Bills were never going to win that game even if they recovered that kick. Why sacrifice your best players in a mad scrum for the ball. BB screwed up Seymour for a few seasons when he got smart and used Seymour as a fullback. He hurt the Pats in the last game in 2006 when Rodney got leveled in a game the Pats didn't really need to win. Football is a contact sport, but you have to protect your best players and BB just doesn't seem to do it.

A: There's no use complaining about how Belichick uses his starters because it's been the same for over eight years. Starters play on special teams. Defensive guys play on offense. Stars play in meaningless exhibitions in August and blowout wins in November. The Seymour example you raise is the only case I can recall where Bill has altered course (you don't see Richard in short-yardage sets anymore). This is one of those cases where you just have to come to grips with how Belichick does business. Acceptance is the price of freedom, AJ.

--

Mikey,

I'm sure I'm not the first to ask, but I just have to know...why would the league whose sole purpose is to generate revenue take probably the second most watched day of Pro football (outside of the Super Bowl) and continually force us to watch the friggin Lions play. They have not fielded a competitive or entertaining team (and I'm being kind) since Barry Sanders left. The games always go one of two ways and they both suck. Either the Lions play a good team (aka the Titans) and will get crushed or for any remote chance of competitiveness play a crappy team (aka the Raiders). Either way we lose. If they mandated the Super Bowl winner play the first game of the season, why can't they mandate the teams from the Conference Championship games replay each other. They could swap home field, so that this year the Pats would be at the Chargers (already scheduled) and the Packers at the Giants. At least the odds of the teams being fairly good would increase dramatically and there would be at least a rivalry factor from the

previous season. With the advent of the NFL network games, the short week excuse won't fly, and I can't see CBS or FOX saying no to this. I don't get it...

Fred

Cranston

A: There’s no reason to make it a conference title rematch, Fred. All they need to do is throw the slot open to different games like they would their Monday night or Thursday night schedules. I agree that it’s becoming an embarrassment. It looks bad for the league that they have a cornerstone franchise that is so incompetent. Everything the NFL does – from the draft to free agency to the salary cap to the schedule – is meant to prevent teams from sucking for an extended period of time. Do you understand how bad you have to be to be a loser for a full decade like Detroit? It’s staggering. But here’s the reason the game hasn’t gone anywhere: the Lions are owned by the Ford family, and in case you haven’t noticed, the Ford Motor Co. spends a bazillion dollars on advertising during NFL games (although maybe not for long). The Fords want the game to remain in Detroit (as it has since 1934) and so the league gives in. Do you know the Lions haven’t been slated for a Monday night game (or an NBC Sunday night game) since 2001? Beyond sad.

--

Michael,

Was I mistaken, or did I hear you use the phrase "Queer Street" on television (last week)? I think you were talking about hockey, and someone checked another player, which you referred to as "Queer Street." Dude, if that's what you said, then that’s a disgustingly homophobic and offensive remark. Think about the connotations of that comment, and never -- ever -- use that term in that context again. I hope I'm wrong -- because, normally, you are one of the few voices on sports radio and TV who is NOT a homophobic, right wing a-hole.

Tom Scanlon

A: Well, you’re right. I’m not a homophobic right winger. The a-hole part I’m not so sure about. Anyway, I did, in fact, use the phrase -- but only because it had stuck in my head after watching the Bruins telecast that night. I'm not going to be a narc and tell you who on NESN said it first. I won’t pass the buck like that. That's not who I am or what I'm about….Okay, it was Jack Edwards. Turns out it's a legit phrase from the boxing world (it may even have originated in Boston), and it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. A couple of links:

http://www.ringsidebygus.com/boxing-terms.html

 http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Queer+Street

--

Subj: Dude

Mikey,

I can't believe you said Dickerson had a better ass than Wendi Nix. Dude, Greggy Dickerson is a candy ass. He once tried out for the Village People, and they decided he was too gay even for them. You’re not BI are you? Stick to women and sports. What do you think the chances are that Manny (The JERK) Ramirez will be a Yankee in 2009?

Keep out of trouble,

R.J. 

Columbia, SC

A: Greg got beat out by the construction worker guy, didn't he? I predict Manny stays with the Dodgers.

--

Felger,

Were Jeff Goodman and Michael Phelps separated at birth?

Tim D

A: Nice.

--

Mr. Felger,

I just wanted to tell you that your commentary regarding the election while filling in for Holley last week was thoughtful and frankly the only sane thoughts I heard on EEI all day. You listened patiently to Dale’s effort to revitalize old, tired, GOP anti-Obama tirades and then calmly shot him out of the water. Your quoting the (David) Brooks article (in the New York Times) was perfect. The right can take the path to regain intellectual integrity or keep on the path they've stumbled down the last 30 years, toward the ``base’’ (read, religious right). Nice job keeping your head and taking the heat.

Dave Patterson

A: Another good Brooks take on the direction of the GOP: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/opinion/11brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Mike,

The real reason I'm emailing is to compliment your two days with Dale discussing politics. Like with sports, you seem to look at the big picture and not get caught up with either party. You mentioned you liked Bill Weld as I do. He's a live-and-let-live style Republican....my cup of tea! Like you and Weld, I voted for Obama not because I think McCain is a bad choice but because he had to please the religious right by picking Palin. The criminal far left like Jesse Jackson make me want to puke, but even lower on the list are right wing nut jobs who think gays can be cured and non-believers are the antichrist. Back to McCain: I do have a certain feeling of guilt not voting for him because I know he's been a great American and he can lean to the center. Pretty sure he was quoted as saying that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are soldiers of intolerance? Again, though, like you I know southern republicans are different that northeast republicans.

Tony

Billerica

A: McCain called Falwell and Robertson "agents" of intolerance, which earned my respect for a lifetime. Imagine that. A Republican going into the deep south and telling evangelicals that their leaders are agents of intolerance. That's the real John McCain, not the guy who we saw at the end of the campaign. Another story I liked: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-11-12/the-gop-must-change-or-die/1/

--

Hey Jerk-Week,

What the hell is a jerk-week? Is it a variation of a jerk-weed and similar to (expletive deleted)-weed? Do you even read your articles before you submit them for posting?

Dan

Boston

A: This one really hurt, editor boy. I’m serious. I can live with messing up facts. I can handle misspellings. Bad homonyms? No problem. I’ve been doing those things my whole career. But if I can’t call myself a jerk-weed with proper execution, then I can’t do anything. (Ed Boy: No excuse. I figured “Jerk-Week” was some sort of Felgerism. A total whiff on my part.)

--

Felgy,

One of the funniest things I have seen on TV in a long time was you hosting the Celtics postgame with Tommy Heinsohn. You had a look of horror on your face like a scared kid that had to spend time with his grumpy uncle. The whole time I was watching I would catch myself thinking, do you think Tommy knows Felgy did a whole show on guys he would do? Thanks, that was some good stuff.

Rick

A: Get your facts straight, Rick. I never did a show on guys I would do. It was only a segment on guys I would do. Hey now!

Wow, there’s a game tonight. I’ll have a column Friday, the report card over the weekend and we’ll chat next week. Bye.

Michael Felger can be seen nightly on Comcast Sportsnet and is a regular contributor for WEEI.com. He can be reached at mfelger@weei.com.