As you know by now, I have some topics near and dear to my heart -- and I'm not even referring to MILFs, cougars, Madonna or Randy Moss.

When it comes to straight football talk, nothing tickles my fancy like a discussion on team-building. Give me a Patriots media guide and let me pour through previous drafts and I’m a happy man. Past free agent signings? Bring ‘em on. Salary cap space spent or not spent? Now we’re talking! This week you draw me in to those considerations and I embrace them as if they were Deion Branch in the flesh.

But that’s not all, of course. We’ve also got thoughts on Ben Watson’s hands, Ernie Adams’ eyesight and Joe Haggerty’s star power. Finally, we compare the balls of Tom Brady to those of Matt Cassel. Good, clean American fun, folks.

Now let’s go live to Gary Tanguay and Greg Dickerson down at the Garden…..

--

Subj: Patriots defensive scheme outdated?

Mike,

When you stop and think about it, when was the last time you really observed a consistent, ball-hawking, blitzing, play-making Patriots defense? In 2001, it was certainly the primary reason they won it all. 2003 and '04? Absolutely. But that's been about it. People can talk about players all they want -- Samuel, Law, etc. But the fact of the matter is that they won Super Bowls with ferocious defenses with key injuries and “off the street'' replacements. Their fundamental, unique scheme was the foundation.

I think it's possible that BB and Pioli tried to “get younger'' on defense and “throttle up'' the capability of the offense -- all in order to compensate for an acknowledgement that the league has been catching up to their defensive approach and have learned how to exploit it. 

It may be time for somewhat of an overhaul to their defensive scheme and overall strategy. Give some new looks. Blitz more often, despite the obvious weakness in the secondary. Recruit and sign faster, ball-hawking playmakers, not robots (so to speak) that are instructed to be in certain places and at certain times -- all of which are, again, part of a defensive scheme that was really last effective in 2004, three years ago.

Just a thought,

Steve,

Kingston

A: I don't know, Steve. The time period you talk about is certainly a line of demarcation. The Pats defense allowed 238 total points (14.9-per-game) in 2003 and 260 points (16.3) in 2004. Then, in 2005, that number ballooned to 338 (21.1). But let's look at what happened between those 2004 and 2005 seasons. Tedy Bruschi had his stroke and hasn’t been the same since. Ty Law was released into free agency. Ted Johnson retired. Roman Phifer wasn't resigned. Romeo Crennel took the head coaching job in Cleveland. Rodney Harrison, three games in the 2005 season, shattered his knee and hasn’t been the same since. And when Harrison went down (literally), so did Eugene Wilson (figuratively). Not too many defenses could recover from such a cascade of injury and loss, and you can make the argument the Pats have yet to do so.

Interestingly, the Pats got their points-against numbers under control against a weak schedule in 2006 (237; 14.8-per-game) and behind a record-setting offense in 2007 (274; 17.1). But, you're right, the defense didn't have the same cache in '06-07 as it did in '03-04, and it showed in the playoffs. This year, the Pats have already given up 302 points and are on pace to allow 345 for the season, which would essentially tie them for the worst defensive year of the Belichick era (the Pats allowed 346 points in 2002). You can only hope the Pats have reached the bottom of the cycle.

Overall, I agree with your belief that the Pats don't confuse anyone any more. As we've said before, the fact that so many teams now employ the 3-4 (it used to be just the Pats and Steelers) has taken away the element of newness. So has the fact that Belichick has been in New England nearly nine full seasons, and at some point doesn't everyone run out of ideas? Everything he's done so far is on tape and has been dissected by the league. So the days of regularly out-smarting opponents seem to be over.

But, all that being said, I have a hard time saying the scheme is the reason the defense has dipped so badly. It seems to me the personnel group that broke apart between 2004 and 2005, as detailed above, just hasn't been replaced with commensurate talent. And, to be fair, there’s no shame in that. Guys like Law, Harrison and Bruschi don’t come around every day. And it’s not like the team has gone in the toilet. The players the Pats have added since have made them a year-in, year-out division champion and deep playoff team. They just haven’t produced a ring.

--

Hey there Felger,

Everyone is talking about how Matt Cassel had such an awesome game in Oakland, and he did. But in case no one noticed, JaMarcus Russell had the same type of numbers. It just goes to show you how HORRIBLE the Patriots secondary is, and how passive they are when it comes to rushing the passer. What should they do? Who should they target in the draft, Taylor Mays is looking good for them, or would they go for another LB or OT? And please help me with the rumors I've been hearing about Scott Pioli going to the Lions along with Cassel and McDaniels. Give me some good news Felger, you're always good for that. Thanks, man.

Eric,

Wareham

A: I would expect the 2009 draft to look very similar to the 2008 draft, with a heavy focus on defense, especially the secondary. As for Mays, the USC junior safety is big and can run. He’s expected to go off the board where good safeties should go – the teens. So maybe the Pats will be there and maybe he's their guy. Who knows? As for Pioli going to the Lions or anywhere else, my gut tells me that Scott stays in New England as long as Belichick is the coach here. Pioli has turned down the chance to interview for big time offers all over the place the last few years (Seattle, Miami, Cleveland, among others). So I don’t know why the Detroit job would be any better or more lucrative than those or why this situation would be any different than the ones in the past. Then there’s always the tricky question of whether the Krafts would even let him leave. Either way, I don't think it comes to that -- just like it hasn't come to that for five years.

--

Felger,

Just because the Pats secondary didn’t look as bad as it usually does against the Raiders, our number one corner, Ellis Hobbs, is still one of the worst corners in the entire league. Over the past weeks, Deltha O’Neal played so bad that it took some pressure off of Mr. Hobbs, but we haven’t forgotten. He couldn’t cover a man in a wheelchair. Let’s not forget about that final play in the Super Bowl, when he almost fell over on the Plax catch. O’Neal/Hobbs is the worst tandem in the league. What can the pats do about this mess?

E

A: The Patriots have got to hope Wheatley is a player and that Wilhite and/or Richardson can develop into decent nickel and dime cover guys in the future. If Hobbs is used properly (i.e., not as a No. 1 corner locked up against the best receiver on the field) he’s a fine piece as a No. 2 or 3. What’s missing is that true playmaker, which Law was and Samuel developed into. Harrison was certainly that sort of player, too, at least in 2003 and 2004. Maybe Brandon Meriweather can be that guy in the future, but he’s not there now. So that’s a pretty big hole, in my opinion. Unfortunately, I can see the Pats heading into next year without having acquired a true No. 1 corner. Even if they use a high first round pick at that spot (one that would be gained through a Cassel trade or another move), it’s hard to place too much responsibility on a rookie until you know he can handle it. And I think it’s extremely unlikely they splurge on Nnamdi Asomugha or make a big trade for another star corner around the league because of finances. Bottom line: If the young players improve then the secondary will have fewer holes across the field next year. But without that true No.1 corner or game-changing safety, it’s hard to see how the unit will be great.

--

Michael,

You have brought up this point many times, and you have nailed it...If we look back over that last seven years, Belichick has squandered  the peak years of many of his players by being too cheap in certain very important skill-positions. He continues to think that he can get by without talent at cornerback -- period. He thinks that he can do it with smoke and mirrors. Of course, one year he thought he could do it without wide-receivers (2006), but at least he learned his lesson on that one. It's very frustrating to watch him do the same mistake over and over again. As a fan, it always feels that Belichick makes sure that the team is not quite good enough to get it done.

Forget about the injuries for a second. I believe that this year would have been a terrible year for the secondary even if everyone was healthy. Of course, he let Asante Samuel go. I will give him credit for at least drafting some young cornerbacks, but he let it go too long. He should have been drafting them two or three years ago, instead of his usual tight ends, etc. I also think that he has been spoiled by Tom Brady, who has been able to mask the defense's weaknesses.

Rick Raiter

Winthrop

A: First of all, you're over-stating my opinion on Belichick’s “squandering'' peak years. I've never said that. I just think they should have paid Deion Branch and had a better plan to replace Samuel. Yes, it bothers me when they're not aggressive in free agency, but aside from a few instances (Branch being one), it's hard to make the case they haven't done the right thing with their money.

As for your contention that Belichick should have been drafting defensive backs well before this year instead of his “usual tight ends’’? At first glance, it seems like a decent point, particularly when you look at the 2006 draft and see that six offensive players came off the board (Laurence Maroney, Chad Jackson, David Thomas, Garrett Mills, Stephen Gostkowski and Ryan O’Callaghan) before the Pats picked a defender, linebacker Jeremy Mincey. Defensive lineman Le Kevin Smith came later in the sixth round that year, and he’s the only defensive player who remains on the team from that draft. So 2006 is looking like a double-whammy – the Pats not only neglected defense for offense, they took offensive players who, aside from Gostkowski, haven’t delivered.

But if you look at every other year, Rick, it sure seems as if the Pats made an effort to build the secondary – they just took the wrong guys. In 2004 they drafted Gus Scott in the third round and Dexter Reid in the fourth. In 2005, Ellis Hobbs came in the third round and James Sanders in the fourth while third- and fifth-round picks were sent to Arizona for Duane Starks. In 2007, the Pats used their first-round pick on Meriweather and a sixth-rounder on Mike Richardson. And last year, of course, Terrence Wheatley was a second-round choice and Jonathan Wilhite was a fourth-rounder. That’s a lot of draft-day capital spent at one spot, with little to show for the effort so far.

--

Felger,

If the Patriots make the playoffs with their current crop of cornerbacks, wouldn’t it validate Belichick’s philosophy that cornerbacks are commodities that can be easily replaced in his system? Many pundits want to use this season as an excuse for Belichick to go out and throw money at some overrated free agent cornerback, when what the team should really do is rebuild the roster’s middle class. This team needs more Roman Phifers and Randall Gays (in their primes), not high-price free agents who’ve reached their peak. Oh, and for as solid as Asante Samuel is, he’s not getting the Eagles into the playoffs. After all, he just a cornerback.

Will Van Dorn

A: The other side of the proverbial coin. First of all, I don’t agree that just making the playoffs constitutes “validation’’ for this program, even after all the injuries. Look at the schedule. I don’t care if Tanguay is playing quarterback and Dickerson is at linebacker, when you play Kansas City, San Francisco, St. Louis, Seattle, Oakland, Buffalo (twice) and Denver (at home), you SHOULD contend for the postseason. And so the Pats are. Good for them, but let’s not go overboard. I know the Pats want to trumpet their depth, but they had substantial injuries in 2003 (42 starters used) and 2004 (40 starters used), too – and they went all the way those seasons with consecutive 14-2 records. This year they’re 9-5 having used 41 different starters. That’s pretty good, no doubt. But it’s also been better.

As for your final point about building the roster’s “middle class,’’ I think the Pats are on the road to doing that. As I said above, I feel they have some young players in the secondary that can fill some solid roles. What they don’t have is that top-end talent. So I guess I disagree with you on what their primary need is.

--

Mike,

What do you think of Jonathan Wilhite’s performance since he has taken over for Delta O’Neil? Do you think he can be better than Hobbs in the long run (excluding special teams)?

Joe

A: Unfortunately, Joe, I don’t think it would take a heck of a lot to be better than Hobbs in the long run. That’s part of the problem. But I’m glad Wilhite is playing and O’Neal is not. If you’re going to put a player on the field you’re not comfortable with, at least have it be with a guy who has upside. O’Neal has none at this juncture.

--

Hey Mike,

1. For the last month or so, every time the Pats kick the ball off I just wait for the opposing team to return it for a long gain or touchdown. I don’t get how the coverage unit has become so porous lately.  2. If I was an opposing offense and I had the ball in the red zone, my first play would be a fade or corner route to whoever Ellis Hobbs is covering because it doesn’t seem like he can stop anyone in that area. 3. Where do I send my resume to become the Pats video replay caller because the guy who is doing it now apparently can’t tell the difference between 11 players and 12?

Eric

A: 1. It’s gotten bad on kickoffs, no doubt about it. The problems really mirror those of the secondary, where open-field tackling has been lousy all year. Maybe it goes back to having too many inexperienced/unskilled linebackers and defensive backs. The Pats are currently 22nd in the league in return yardage against, which is a shame given how good Pro Bowl kicker Stephen Gostkowski is on kickoffs.

2. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If I were an opponent, I would throw against the Patriots in the red zone on EVERY DOWN. After the Raiders scored on both of their trips inside the Pats’ 20, the Pats have now officially become the worst red zone team in the NFL with a touchdown percentage of 68.2.

3. Ernie Adams is the man upstairs (or at least he was). He’s having a Wendell Kim kind of year, no question.

--

Subj: Third scenario?

Hi Mike,

I agonized as well watching the “wide right” Bills bumble one away.  Nonetheless, wouldn’t a third scenario allow the Pats to get in if Indy lost their final two games and the Pats won out?

Mark Laney 

Augusta, Maine

A: Yes. Not happening, though.

--

Felgy,

How sweet would a tie between the Fish and Jets be on the last day of the season as Cassel rides into the playoffs?

John

Scituate

A: Sweet, but not happening either. In fact, I think it’s time for my standard bet in these situations. If the Colts lose out or the Dolphins and Jets tie, I’ll jump into Charles River wearing nothing but a cheese head. Take it to the bank.

--

Feminine hygiene product,

Who is the hotshot rookie on the defensive line, #93? He reminds me of a former All-Pro lineman during the Pats' Super Bowl years named Richard Seymour. If you aren't aware of the story, Big Sey set the NFL ablaze during his five-year career (2001-2005) and then retired immediately after signing a 4-year, $30M contract. In his honor, the Patriots trotted out an impostor in 2006 and 2007 who was injured and/or ineffective for two straight seasons but never called out on it because his reputation preceded him and because he's a nice guy to the media.

In all honesty, Seymour's finally played more in line with his early years this season. Does he have new motivation? Is he padding his stats by beating tight ends and chipping running backs for his sacks (which Vrabel did quite a bit last year)? Or is he just flat-out playing up to his abilities again?

Craig Barry

A: Health is definitely a factor, Craig. But I think that’s related to his motivation, as well.  Richard is coming up on another free agent year after the 2009 season (provided he’s not hit with the franchise tag), at which point he’ll only be 29. That means if he can enter the market with two consecutive productive, healthy seasons under his belt, he’ll once again command huge dollars. His motivation was apparent starting this past offseason, when for the first time in several years, he elected to do his offseason rehab and training in Foxboro and not South Carolina. I think it all started there. You can excuse the Pats if they’re wondering why Seymour didn’t show the same offseason commitment the first two years of his deal, when he trained on his own and wound up in poor health both seasons, but at least it looks like they’ll get Seymour at his best the final two years of the contract.

I think Seymour was mildly snubbed for the Pro Bowl this year. But since he went on reputation in 2005 and 2006, it all evens out.

--

Subj: Brady's balls

Felger,

There are more drops this year than last year with the exact same receiving corps. Are Brady's balls just easier to handle for receivers than Cassel's balls?

Albert

A: Hey now! Good ball talk. My favorite. To answer your question, no. I think Cassel throws every bit as catchable a ball as Brady. If you’re seeing more balls on the ground than last year, it’s because Ben Watson can’t catch, Jabar Gaffney is mediocre and Randy Moss hasn't been as consistent as he was last season. Nothing more, nothing less. Cassel's balls look fine to me.

--

Mike,

Am I the only one concerned about what's going to happen in the delivery room when the doctor passes the baby to Benjamin Watson?

Steve

E. Taunton

A: Hopefully there's a nurse behind him to collect the deflection.

--

I enjoy your columns and even hearing you on the radio. It’s good to have someone on EEI with a different take on matters. My question relates to the Patriots kickoff coverage team. It occurred to me as Justin Miller was returning that kick and Sam Aiken couldn’t quite get there, that there is no reason for Ben Watson not to be on that unit. His rundown of Champ Bailey is the most memorable play of his career and he could have an opportunity to reprise that play any number of times on the kickoff return squad! Seriously, the KR coverage unit seems like a perfect fit for Watson. Any idea on why he’s not on that unit?

Thanks,

Jim

Providence

A: I see what you’re saying. But as bad as Watson has been catching the ball, he does serve a purpose in the offense. And he's injury-prone. So I think, all in all, it’s probably a little late for that.

While we're on the topic, the David Thomas disappearing act has been perplexing, hasn’t it? He’s got good hands, they need production from the position and yet he hasn’t caught a ball since that late hit penalty in Indy. Maybe it’s time to let him out of the doghouse.

--

Subj: Ben Watson

Mike

This guy is the prime reason you should never fall in love with a guy based on his combine workout. Not since Bethel Johnson has a great athlete had so much trouble transferring it to the football field. At Georgia he never quite lived up to expectations and he is proof positive that being a “great athlete’’ doesn’t always transcend to the football field. At least Daniel Graham was a hard nosed football player. This guy is just soft.

Enjoy your work,

Don Ludwig

A: Contrary to popular myth, the Pats have taken their share of “combine guys’’ over the years – and their record with those players isn’t so hot. Laurence Maroney. Chad Jackson. Watson. Johnson. Their best picks have usually been the guys who experts considered “too’’ something. That is, too slow (Asante Samuel), too small (Deion Branch, Dan Koppen) or too out of shape (Ty Warren, Vince Wilfork). Meanwhile, your Daniel Graham comparison is an interesting one. He was thought to be an inconsistent receiver, but next to Watson, Graham looks like Kellen Winslow (Sr.). And as much as Watson has helped out in the blocking game, Graham still set the standard in that regard. Bottom line: Graham, as incomplete as he may have been, was a better player and a better pick.

--

Felger,

Seahawk fans consider Branch a total bust and he is highly likely to be waived this offseason. Randy Moss -- in the discussion as greatest receiver ever. Deion Branch -- monumental bust. Hard to argue your side in this. Branch had good production in the playoffs, but to extrapolate that to being a better player, that opens up a whole can of worms -- like is Jermaine Wiggins better than Ben Coates? Eli Manning better than Peyton Manning? Is Mark Rypien better than Peyton Manning?

You are wrong and have gone totally Borges on this issue.

Digger

A: You obviously didn’t understand my point. I’m not arguing Branch is better than Moss (he’s not). I’m saying that if I could only have one for this offense and these quarterbacks, I’d pick Branch. See last week’s bag for a thorough explanation. Meanwhile, you raise a very tantalizing possibility. If Seattle does, in fact, waive Branch, how great would it be to see him come back here and line up opposite Moss? The Pats would never lose again. Ever.

--

Subj: Branch/Moss = Russell/Chamberlain

Felger, I agree with you. One guy gets the numbers. The other guy gets the rings.

Ben Johnson

A: I’m not going that far, Ben. Had the Pats defense closed the deal last February, Moss would have his championship. But you’ve got the general premise.

--

Mike,

I was just looking up salary cap #'s on Pats noticed 10-12 free agents after ‘09. How about a discussion on who we can keep who we have to let walk? Looks like we could have a whole different team.

Thanks,

Paul

Springfield

A: The big call in the 2009 offseason will be if the Pats keep Vince Wilfork and Seymour together. I find it hard to imagine that both will get big, multi-year extensions. Maybe you can tag one (Seymour) and sign the other (Wilfork), but not both. Others up that offseason include Kevin Faulk, Jarvis Green, Matt Light, Stephen Neal, Mike Vrabel, Bruschi and Watson. Frankly, I don’t see huge issues signing any of those players because I don’t think any is going to have a huge market. Guys like Faulk, Vrabel and Bruschi will be too old to command big dollars. Light and Neal have worked with the Pats on team-friendly deals in the past. Green is trending down. Watson stinks. I’m not saying all return after 2009, I’m just saying the Pats will be able to retain the ones they want to retain. Seymour and Wilfork are the question marks.

--

Hey Felger,

At the high level that Faulk is playing at this point in his career, do you think that earlier in his career, when he was in his prime, that he was misused and underutilized? I realize that he has had fumbling issues and was never considered an every down back because of his size. Looking at the way he can make people miss, his blocking, and the fact that he has some of the best hands for a running back I've ever seen I don't see why he couldn't have been a Brian Westbrook type in his prime. Maybe not that good, but that type of back. Agree or disagree?

Matt Graupen

Stoughton

A: Don’t get me wrong, Matt. I think Faulk has developed into one of the enduring players on this team. When this run is over we’re going to look back and say he was one of the key guys. He IS a Westbrook-type. He’s just not Westbrook, who has rushed for over 1,000 yards twice in his career and has caught for over 600 yards in a season four times. Faulk’s season high for rushing was 638 in 2003. He’s never had more than 500 yards receiving. In the past, I always felt the more Faulk touched the ball the more likely you were to get diminishing returns in the form of turnovers or injuries. But the last few years have shown that Faulk has moved past that stage of his career. He’s been great. But he’s not Westbrook.

--

Mikey,

Jim Rice not qualified for the Hall of Fame? Moss attacks by a would-be sports hack? It just proves that your big mouth is not matched by your knowledge. In fact, I'm not sure it's worth wasting more time writing to you or listening when you are alone on CSN.

Fed Up With cheese heads who are over fermented,

Ralph Turgeon

A: This angry response came after I said NICE things about Moss on TV. My point was that he and Terrell Owens never deserve to be mentioned in the same breath again -- and probably never did in the first place -- because one (Moss) turns out to be a good teammate and a solid pro while the other (Owens) has shown he’ll forever be a putz. Even when I say nice things about Moss I get hammered. As for Rice, I haven’t changed my mind: If it takes you 15 years to convince me you’re a Hall of Famer, you’re probably not a Hall of Famer. Plus he was mean to the media (I’M KIDDING!).

--

Felgy,

I don't think the Bruins offense will tail off as you do. I agree they sucked in the playoffs last year, but they were missing Kobasew and Bergeron and had an anchor named Glen Murray. This year Kessel is clearly a better player and they have Kobasew back, Lucic a year older and Claude is letting the D jump up into the play more. I think Bergeron will come around scoring and Ryder is starting to bury the puck. This is a young team that in my opinion will just get better. That series with Montreal last year showed these guys they can play with the big boys and gave them a ton of confidence. I'm just glad the Bruins I grew up watching are back.

Paul Fitzgerald

A: I hope you're right on the offense, but I still think the key to this team, and any hockey team, is the goals-against. The B’s can afford to score less (and I still think they will), but the other end of the ice has to remain elite for them to be a deep playoff team. Meanwhile, did you see Chara stick up for Kessel on Saturday night? It literally brought a tear to my eye.

--

Felgy brother,

Where is the love? I write in last week that the Pats need playmakers on defense. I watch your show on Thursday night and you say the Pats need playmakers on defense. I then go to read the mail bag, looking for some mention in there that might tie into the show. Instead, bupkis! I guess you to have to throw out your obligatory who's the hottest chick BS to appeal to some fans, but I thought I had a good point and I think BB should use some of the offense guys on D too. Was Troy Brown that unusual?

AJ

A: Nothing worse than a chronic complaining about his mailbag treatment. AJ wrote me last week wondering why Belichick didn’t play Ben Watson at safety, Sammy Morris at nickel linebacker and Sam Aiken and Kelly Washington at corner. And I’m the bad guy for not posting it?

--

Mike,

I know many callers on WEEI have been mentioning that this year’s Pats season is more enjoyable than last. For me personally I feel this season is definitely more relaxing. I think the reason is SPYGATE.  I could not turn on any sports show last year and not hear a mention of that word. When you and your colleagues were in Arizona the days leading up to the Super Bowl the coverage of SPYGATE made it impossible to look forward to the game. Again you were not in Boston at the time, and did not know the levels of craziness it was here. Do you think Spygate is a factor in many Pats fans enjoying this season more than last?

Russ

Walpole

A: I think it’s been great that we’ve been able to talk nothing but football this year. There has been nothing about running up scores or Matt Walsh or Arlen Specter. That got very tedious last season…..but not as tedious as some of those games. I don’t know if this season has been more “enjoyable,’’ but the games have certainly been a lot more compelling.

--

Hey Felger:

I read in your mailbag that you made Haggerty (a star) from your other station. I've only heard him a couple of times and it didn't take me long to decide that he's a complete a-hole. He may be more annoying than you or even Bob Halloran. I can see why your ratings were 0.0.

Jack

Holden

A: Joe is more annoying than me or Bob Halloran? NO ONE is more annoying than me or Bob Halloran. And I’ll have you know we didn’t do 0.0’s. We did 0.4’s.

--

Hey Felgy,

Am I wrong, or do the Pats lead the league each year in players lost to injuries? Even during their `03 and `04 championships they seemed to be shorthanded. It seems that the Jets go year after year virtually unscathed. Is it time for the Pats to reevaluate how they strength and condition? Last but not least please admit that Madonna has morphed into a hideous hag. Hall of fame MILF-Selma Hayek

Dave

Stoughton

A: First things first. The Pats’ strength and conditioning coach is Mike Woicik, who has more Super Rings than anyone else in the organization, having won three with Dallas in the 90’s before winning three here under Belichick. So if Mike is the problem, then he’s a problem that about 31 other NFL teams would like to have. As for your second point, I’ll ignore the Madonna comment and simply agree withy you on Hayek, who at 42 and with a child at home is, indeed, an elite, high-end MILF.

--

Mike

On tonight's Comcast Sportsnet show (12/15), you looked like you either just returned from an epic late eighties Alpine Valley show or spent a weekend as part of a Lattimore/Donaldson entourage. Is everything okay?

Concerned,

Matt Walsh

A: Once again, Walsh returns to cause trouble. Are you saying that it looked like I had exceeded my usual limit from the night before, which is two Michelob Ultra Lights? Okay, I had three.

--

Felger you DB!

I honestly can't stand any more coverage of Favre and T.O. It's astounding how these two media whores constantly get covered like a major breaking news story every time they do anything of note. News Flash: T.O. is nuttier than a squirrel’s stool, we get it. He is a disruption. We get that too. It’s old news, folks. Just ask Donovan McNabb and Jeff Garcia. Now he's fighting with Witten and Romo. Does this honestly need to be covered like the moon landing? How long before Pedro Gomez sets up a pup tent in T.O.'s driveway?

And Favre is just as bad. Every time someone mentions the Jets they talk about Favre like he's the friggin messiah and a major reason they are having a great season. First of all, it's not that great a season when you need another improbably painful Buffalo choke job (NOBODY Circles the drain like the Buffalo Bills!) to keep you in the driver seat after getting spanked by San Francisco. And second, the Jets would be a better team right now with Pennington than with Favre. You take that Arizona game away, and Favre would have 15 TDs and 16 Picks and be a drunken Suzy Kolber proposition away from being a true Jets legend. Now if we could get T.O. on a team with Favre it would be must see T.V. Schizophrenic quarterback + schizophrenic wide receiver = Pure Entertainment.

Nice to see my boy Haggs has my back on the Cuthbert vs. Madonna throwdown. I understand your logic on Madonna keeping fit for the long haul, but it's still flawed. Put it in car terms. Would you rather have a new mint Mustang GT, right out of the showroom or an old Subaru that is 25 years old but still going strong? It's the Mustang and it's not even close. We’re talking about right now, Mikey. Right now Cuthbert is in her prime and Madonna looks like Iggy Pop in drag. If you like ‘em fit, check out Gina Carano of MMA fame. BTW, the first time I heard Haggs on your old show, I thought he was a writer from somewhere in Chicago. Why is that you ask? Because I started to get bits of 890 WLS breaking into the signal. And you guessed it, WLS is a Chicago station.

Mike

Attleboro

A: Yeah, tune into 890 at night and you either get WLS in Chicago or 880 out of New York. That, and Haggerty, is what I blame for the 0.0’s…er, 0.4’s.

Have a good weekend everybody. Go Cowboys. Talk to you next week.

--

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.