There were several things I knew about Rob Bradford when I agreed to write for WEEI.com last summer.

I knew he liked to shout into the microphone on the radio (a little like myself).

I knew he was a bit of a Red Sox homer.

I knew he sported a weird, 70’s-porn, mangina-like goatee on his face. 

But I never knew he was a bald-faced liar. 

If you ever hear Bradford claim again that I requested that the d-bag mailbag be a bi-monthly endeavor, please call him out for the fraud that he is. As you know, I have no problem with being bi, but that never went for the mailbag. This deserves to be a weekly exercise. Please keep the pressure on little Robbie and that grotesque thing he keeps on his face.

In the meantime, I’ve responded the only way I know how: With a massive mailbag that, for the first time ever, cracks the magic 10,000-word threshold. I would have gone longer, but I didn’t have the time.

WHAT, ROB, DO YOU WANT ME TO QUIT MY OTHER TWO JOBS?!

(Bradford: Again, I am bolding this because I can. I have that kind of power. After having Felger subject Copyedit Kirk to 10,000 words, and reading nonsensical rants, I am officially extending the invitation - again - to the author of this space to write a mailbag every week. No matter what lies he might spew, this is the same offer that came his way before. So there you have it, keep sending in those emails because if you don't Felger might have to get creative and think of something other to rant about other than the mythical mandate that has been publicized to the mailbag-reading public. Felger, mailbag or no mailbag, your choice ...)

As always, this bag is for mature audiences only….
--

Subj: Just ask!
Michael,

Simple question for sportswriters (with any integrity) to ask Jason Varitek, David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, Derek Jeter, Mark Texiera, etc. “Are you amongst the 104 players who tested positive for steroids in 2003?'' These players know the list of names is going to leak, sooner rather than later. They are indeed waiting for the other shoe to drop! Wouldn't their answer/non-answer be telling?

Sincerely,
Warren Mason

A: Sure it’d be telling. I nominate Tony Maz or Mike Silverman to be the one to ask Ortiz. I’ll give Varitek to Bradford.
--

Felger You DB!

If Bud Selig was a father and MLB was his child, the courts would have stripped him of custody, issued a restraining order and had him chemically castrated to prevent any future potential parental debacles. That is how bad Bud Selig's tenure has been as commissioner. I can't name one thing that Bud Selig has done right, and his lack of action on performance enhancers ensured the single most preventable and embarrassing incident in MLB history would take place. While Bud was busy polishing the owners china and counting his money, MLB locker rooms turned to training that was much less Tom Emanski and much more East Germany. As a result the very statistics that make baseball so great and separates it from the other major American sports are now dirtier than an Allston snow bank, and a full generation of star players and their accomplishments are as questionable as Dan Shaugnessy’s hair choices. The credibility of your sport is smoldering at your feet, Bud. The least you can do is play the fiddle for us.  

And could Peter Gammons' interview with A-Rod have been any softer? That was pure journalistic bubble wrap. Honestly, I think Sponge Bob Square Pants fielded tougher questions at the Nickelodeon Kid's choice awards.

Mike
Attleboro

A: You’re the all-time best, Mike, but I disagree with you on both points. I think the players and the union were far more to blame for the lack of drug testing than Bud and the owners. It literally took an act of congress to get them to pee in a cup. And I think Peter did a respectable job with that interview. Remember, the reason A-Rod gave it to him in the first place is because he likes and trusts him. If Peter didn’t go easy, A-Rod would have given it to someone else who would have. You weren’t going to get satisfaction in that setting no matter who A-Rod went with, so it might as well have been Peter. If Rodriquez was in a press conference and he got that treatment, you’d have more of a case. (As you all know, I am a preeminent authority on the nuances of interviewing).
--

Mike,
 
I just have a comment about the Thornton-era Bruins. Those teams always had great forward lines. In spite of Thornton’s ignominious 0-0-0 line versus the Habs, those teams never had a problem scoring. Unlike in the Sinden era, they had toughness and skill to spare at forward. The problem was that Mike O’Connell was Harry Sinden’s antithesis. Where Sinden would trade Geoff Courtnall for Andy Moog in a year when the Bruins had Cam Neely, Ken Linseman, and a bunch of JAGs at forward, O’Connell traded Ray Bourque for two forwards, played hardball over short money with Nick Boynton....and signed Peter Popovic, Hal Gill, Jiri Slegr, Ian Moran, and Sean O’Donnell to fill out the blue line. Those guys didn’t stickhandle; they looked like a bunch of guys with axes trying to halve a marble. Then to add balance, he got Jonathan Girard, Jeff Jillson, Andy Delmore, Jamie Rivers... guys who could handle the puck, but who had Frogger-like skills at avoiding traffic. You had big goofs who couldn’t skate well enough to make it out of their own end, and little guys who could skate but needed a GPS to find their own end. Not a single guy who could play in all situations.
 
By contrast, Chiarelli seems to realize that at some point, your five best players need to be on the ice, and they can’t all play the same position. It does you no good to have five good forwards on the bench because you have a glut of talent there, but have Hal Gill and Sean O’Donnell trying to shut down the other team’s top line because you have no better options. Finally we have a GM that realizes that the Cup goes to a team with talent at every position. 
 
Regards,
Joe Seely

A: Whoa, whoa, whoa, Joe. I just got back into hockey and you're throwing Jeff Jillson and Peter Popovic at me? Let me walk before I run, babe. But your point is well-taken. This team has more balance, and I think I’d throw goaltending into that equation as well. Didn’t O’Connell go into the playoffs one year with Jeff Hackett and Steve Shields in net? 
--

Felgy,

I’m getting a little worried about the Bruins. Too many guys not involved for long stretches of time. I went to the Philly game and I didn’t notice Krejci, Wheeler or Kessel at all. The best thing the Bruins did earlier in the year was just overwhelm teams and I’m not seeing that anymore. In fact, I’m seeing teams like the Sharks take it to the B’s. I just don’t want to see bad habits set in that could kill them come playoff time. 

Paul
Whitman

A: Let’s put that San Jose loss in some perspective. It was the first time all season they lost by more than two goals. It was the first time they lost after leading going into the third period. It snapped a nine-game streak in which they hadn’t lost in regulation. So, overall, let’s not go overboard with the defeat. The B’s have had a run here where they’ve done far more good than bad.

But that being said, I share your concerns. You’re right about Krejci. He seems to have fallen off the map, and without him you’ve lost much of your scoring depth. Kessel’s output has also dried up considerably since the mono, and Lucic had a long drought before finally showing up against San Jose. The Shawn Thornton-Stephane Yelle-Byron Bitz line has been the team’s best unit on some nights, and that’s obviously not what you’re looking for. So the scoring has dried up. 

The good news is that outside of the Sharks game, the B’s are still winning or tying (in regulation) most of their games, and recently they’ve gone against virtually the entire Eastern Conference playoff field. They’re just doing it with goals-against instead of goals-for. 

The bad news is that, from a skill standpoint, the B’s have taken a step back since the All-Star break. I don’t know if that’s just the natural ebb and flow of the season, or if it’s water seeking its level. We’ll see.

Bottom line: The third period of the Sharks game represented the only time this season I’ve truly seen the Bruins get out-classed. In every other game, they’ve either been better than, or least gone toe-to-toe with, the opposition.
--

Subj: Facts, Felgy, facts

In your Thornton article, you wrote, “Chiarelli hired the wrong coach his first year, Dave Lewis, and Chara and Savard were disappointments as the B's again missed the playoffs in 2006-2007.” Tell me and all the readers how Savard (82 games played; 22 goals; 74 assists; 96 points) was a disappointment his first year. You were right about Dave Clueless and Chara was trying to do everything that year, and it took away from his play, but Savard was one of the only bright spots on that team.
 
Neil

A: You’re right. It wasn’t fair to lump Savard in with that disappointing season. Very unprofessional of me. 
--

Mike,

The thing you didn't do in that Cassel article was ask how good he is in the current NFL vs. other QBs. While one year is a small sampling, I think he's better than Tony Romo, for instance. 

Dave Long
Manchester, NH

A: Where would you, my readers, rank Cassel among all NFL quarterbacks right now? Let's give it a crack. Here’s my list, in order:

1. Tom Brady
2. Peyton Manning
3. Ben Roethlisberger (the toughest position to figure on this list)
4. Philip Rivers
5. Eli Manning
6. Drew Brees
7. Jay Cutler
8. Carson Palmer (I’m still a believer)
9. Aaron Rodgers
10. Matt Ryan
11. Joe Flacco
12. Kurt Warner
13. Tony Romo (sorry, Dave, I disagree with you)
14. Chad Pennington
15. Matt Cassel
16. Matt Schaub
17. Donovan McNabb
18. Brett Favre

Yes, by the end of last year, Cassel was playing like a top 10 guy, maybe even a top-5 one. But if you were redrafting the league, I’d take at least 13 quarterbacks ahead of him (though not Warner or Pennington). 
--

Michael,

Wouldn't the Pats (and his future team) be better off signing Cassel to a good but reasonable contract, so that a potential trade partner would know exactly what Cassel is going to cost them?  

Gary M 
Maine

A: Opposing teams would love it if the Pats signed him to an extension first, because when you trade for a player you are only responsible for his base salaries, not his signing bonus. Conversely, if the Pats did what you were suggesting they’d basically be giving him a huge signing bonus to play elsewhere. Not the way it works. Now, if the Pats can get Cassel to agree to an affordable multi-year deal to remain in New England as Brady's heir apparent, then they'd sign him. But they wouldn't sign him first and then trade him. It makes no sense because of the bonus money.
--

Felger,
 
I usually like your articles, but I found the recent Cassel article comparing him to other backups to be off-base, simply because a majority of the guys you list hardly played at all. Cassel just played 15 and a half games and led a team, albeit with a variety of weapons, to an 11-5 record. Schaub, Johnson, Bulger, and Hasselbeck didn’t play more than a game, while Feeley and Mitchell played less than half of a season.
 
What I found fascinating (okay, probably not fascinating, but a great point) was your take on picking up a second rounder and then swapping first round picks. I’d imagine the Pats would jump at a chance to add (USC linebacker Rey) Maualuga and pair the 260-pound wrecking ball with Mayo for the next decade. The knock on him is over-running plays, but you have to think BB can coach him through that. This defense has lacked playmakers at linebacker and pairing Mayo and Maualuga would be a Pats fan’s dream. This would be a very tough team to run on. Plus, another second rounder gives them three in the second and two more in the third to build with. That’s tremendous flexibility to move up in this draft again, or pick up more picks for 2010.
 
I can’t imagine how anyone watching the playoffs wasn’t shocked at how much better the defenses were than New England’s. This is a critical draft for them, and if they hit on it like they did in 2003 they could be looking at another two championships in the next five years.
 
PS: I’m with you on Branch.  If he gets cut I’d be all over that in a heartbeat.  No one seems worried about the possibility of Moss slowing down in a year or two, but it’s something to think about -- he’s on the wrong side of 30.  Plus, the sheer quickness of Branch and Welker underneath with Moss outside would be terrifying.  

Kevin Farrahar

A: I agree that Cassel has more substantive NFL experience than any other guy I mentioned in the article. That’s why the Pats will probably ask for more than what the other teams did for their backups. But that doesn’t mean they’ll get it. As for Maualuga, he certainly has the size Belichick covets at linebacker. But if I had my choice, I’d prefer an outside linebacker or edge rusher. I think getting to the quarterback is a higher priority for the Pats than stopping the run.
--

Hi Michael,

Loved the article and I wish Cassel all the best. Historically the Patriots do not like to draft in the top 10. They like to move draft picks to help them in later years. I don't know if Matt Cassel is worth a top 10 pick, but honestly who would you rather be building your team around Stafford/Sanchez or Cassel? I think local fans, EEI hosts, and even sports writers are putting too much emphasis on the 2009 draft. The Patriots have 3 picks in the first two rounds and I think BB is satisfied with his 2009 draft status. Do you agree with this scenario: Cassel for a first round pick in next year’s draft and a third or fourth? 

Brian Z

A: If the Pats want to avoid paying a lot of rookie bonus money this year, then I can see them prioritizing 2010 picks over ones this year. Otherwise, I want them to build that defense as quickly as possible, and that means as many high picks this spring as they can get their hands on.
--

Mike,
 
Your historical take on the value of Matt Cassel is interesting but by focusing on past trade history you missed the most important determinants of what his value will be in today’s NFL. He will be worth what another team wants to pay in trade, and that is likely to be very high for a number of reasons: 
 
1) There will be competition for his services. There are at least eight or nine teams that are in serious need of help, and any basic comparison of Cassel’s performance last year vs. what those teams experienced clearly shows Cassel to be an upgrade. 

2) It is currently NFL conventional wisdom that picking QBs in the draft is a risky business. The fans and owners of the QB-desperate teams will understand that a trade (see Matt Schaub) is a safer route for the GM/Coach to take. Safety rules in the herd-like NFL. 

3) QBs picked early are really expensive. In fact, they are way more expensive than a franchised Matt Cassel at $14m for one year. Matt Ryan, who worked out beautifully for Atlanta, cost over $30m in guarantees and a $70m total contract. God forbid you pay Sanchez or Stafford that kind of money and watch them play like JaMarcus Russell or Joey Harrington. There is a good reason why the Patriots don’t really like high, first-round draft slots -- it's not that the players aren’t good, it's that the cost of a mistake or an injury is enormous.
 
4) Lastly, in a strange way, the Pats may actually be able to marginally increase Cassel’s value in a trade by making it seem as if they are a reluctant seller (in contrast to the Bledsoe situation where everyone knew he had to go), because they need him as insurance should Brady not be able to come back on time. Cassel is playing along nicely by saying he is happy to stay.
 
Jonathan Uhrig

A: Sounds fine on paper, Jonathan. Then again, Ryan and Joe Flacco were also “risky” because of their age, compensation and the QB failure rate – yet I don’t think the Falcons or Ravens regret their decisions one bit. I think everything is a risk. I can see a few teams going after Cassel, but I don’t know if his market is going to be as intense as you think. You’re right about Cassel playing ball, though. The Patriots are trying to create the impression they are fully prepared to bring back Cassel in 2009 (see Belichick’s statement the day he was franchised), and that will no doubt be used as a leverage point in trade negotiations. It helps that Cassel is playing along.
--
Subj: How could you forget Favre?
The Falcons drafted him in the second round (No. 33 overall) in 1991 and he only attempted four passes in his career at Atlanta, completing none of them. His first pass in an NFL regular season game resulted in an interception returned for a touchdown. Ha Ha. Packers GM Ron Wolf traded a first–round pick (19th overall, RB Tony Smith, Southern Miss) for Favre during the following offseason.
Kenny West
A: I think the Favre case was so different it almost doesn’t count. It was almost as if he was redrafted. Remember, Wolf was with the Jets in 1991 and wanted Favre badly then, but Atlanta took him one selection before New York was on the clock in the second round (the Jets wound up taking Browning Nagle. Nice!). Less than a year later, after Wolf got the Green Bay job, one of the first things he did was acquire Favre for a first-rounder. No one knew what the hell Wolf was doing. It wasn’t as if Favre had done a thing with the Falcons to increase his value, and still Wolf gave the No. 17 pick to Atlanta for a player the Falcons drafted at No. 33. It made little sense at the time. Wolf was the only one on that train, and it was based 100 percent on Favre’s college resume. There’s no other case like it.
--
Mike,
Here's what I don't get: If Cassel is just a nice guy, and wants to play ball, then things should work out as everybody is predicting. However, if Cassel is looking out for Cassel, I don't see how he benefits by facilitating a trade (i.e., working out a long term deal with the team he's traded to). Primarily speaking, professional athletes want two things -- money, and the freedom to choose the city/team they play for. Even if sitting behind Brady for one year lessens his value somewhat, whatever contract he gets as a free agent in 2010 plus the $14 million from '09 would almost certainly surpass the dollar amount on a long term deal with a potential trading partner. Plus, he gets to choose the team he plays for if he waits it out for a year. He can choose the city and organization that is the best fit for him professionally and personally (that is, not Detroit). If I'm Matt Cassel, and I get franchised, I sign the contract, turn off my cell phone, and say I'll see you at mini-camp. 
Matt Durham
A: Here’s the catch: The Pats can franchise him again in 2010, and Cassel will be right back where he started. Agreed, at $14 million per year, that’s a pretty fine place to be stuck in. But none of that is happening. Matt is going to find a team he wants to play for at a contract that he likes, and the Pats are going to strike a deal with that team. Either that, or the reports about the poor state of Brady’s knee will turn out to be true and Cassel will come back and play for the Pats, likely under the tag. I don’t see any other scenario.
--

Felger,
 
We all read Shaugnessy's piece on Brady being “soft”, which is funny coming from a sports writer. But how about a more legitimate concern: how about the amount of distractions Brady will bring to this team next year? So the plan is: trade Cassel for young, rookie talent and continue to rebuild the defense? But how will that work in an environment which could, potentially, be surrounded by so many distractions (from the national sports media, obviously, to national tabloid media).
 
Most trades with Brady are absurd, since he will be back to 100% eventually. But after marrying Giselle, his life is forever changed. You've got to assume, logically, that this could be a BIG distraction to not only his game, but also his teammates' as well (especially the young ones). It's time to trade Brady, even though I hate to say it. He's just too big now, and to think that such status will have NO impact on the team is naive. Shaugnessy was onto something: distractions!

John DiBriggio

A: Does anyone agree with this? I might have given it an ounce of credence had I not seen Brady in action in 2007, when he had a child out of wedlock with his famous ex-girlfriend and went on to have the greatest single season in NFL history while his newborn son lived 3,000 miles away. If Brady wasn’t “distracted” then, I don’t know when he would be. I think a more pertinent bit of speculation would surround the fact Brady is no longer a fulltime member of the Pats’ offseason conditioning program, but even on that score I’m going to wait to see evidence of that departure affecting his game before I jump off a bridge. In other words, I think you need to worry about Brady’s knee more than his personal life.
--

Felger,
 
I think it’s clear what the Pats need next year in the draft. If you look at this year’s playoff teams most had strong linebacker and safety play, especially the Steelers, Ravens and Cardinals (you could add Philly with Dawkins, too -- it adds to my argument). Besides the bone-headed play of running over the holder, how great is Adrianne Wilson? Love the way he plays, like a young Rodney. Anyway, is there anyone in the FA market that the Pats could add at safety?  They really need a presence back there and, as much as I love Rodney, he doesn’t have the closing speed anymore. Watch Polamalu and Wilson and you see them fly to a hole.  Is there anyone out there the Pats could bring in outside of the draft?
 
I’d also love to see the Patriots draft one of the USC linebackers. Maualuga is a monster in the middle, and I’d love to see him stuff the run (imagine him, Mayo and Wilfork plugging the middle). Anyway, what are the chances of trading up for a No. 10-15 pick to get him? What do you think? I mean LB and safety are a top priority. P.S. – Since you brought up Fitzgerald’s can, that’s pretty much all I see when he plays.

Eric

A: I’ve seen defenses dominate a lot of different ways, Eric. Last year, the Giants had a mediocre secondary but became a dominant defense in the playoffs thanks almost entirely to their defensive line. The Steelers, even with Polamalu roaming around in back, are still built around their linebackers. Ed Reed is the guy in Baltimore. The bottom line is that I’ll take a dominant defense anyway I can get it. There are a lot of ways to get there. I do agree with you on the safety thing, though. It’s why I’ve said 1,000 times over that I think the development of Brandon Meriweather is as important as any issue facing the defense.
--

Felgy,

Reminiscing on the 2007 Patriots season, trying desperately not to think about this Super Bowl game, I still can't get over Belichick's arrogance during that season (and Josh McDaniels' ineptness). I'm a big Belichick fan, but imagine the arrogance to think that in the NFL -- a league consisting of the most premier players in the WORLD -- you think you can win a championship without really running the ball. I know, they ``used the screen'' instead; but the only problem is, once the pocket collapses through pressure, both your passing and running game are in trouble. Last year’s Super Bowl in a nutshell.

Ultimately, the '07 Patriots lost the big game because of other reasons (the O-line being the biggest). The Morris injury was huge in terms of the running game. But I just look back at the decisions to, in some ways, abandon the traditional run game and run nearly EVERYTHING out of passing set as arrogant and, frankly, just dumb from a supposed ``genius.'' This is why I don't miss Josh McDaniels. Bye, bye, Josh...

What do you think? Legitimate? Or, considering their 16-0 run, crazy?

Greg
NH

A: Sort of crazy. First of all, I think that Super Bowl loss was a complete system failure. Offense, defense, special teams, coaching. It all played a part. But more specifically: Yes, perhaps if the Pats had been more balanced they could have run at those Giants speed rushers and slowed them down. But, in my opinion, I still think the defensive collapse (14 Giants points in the fourth quarter) was more crucial. The Pats had at least a half-dozen chances to close that game out and they just couldn’t do it. The better defense won that night, as is usually the case in the Super Bowl. Why are we still talking about this?
--

Hello Michael,
 
Ok, I get it. You're a very angry man. But, please, it's only sports so after a while your burst-a-blood-vessel-rants grow tiresome. And please show some respect for your colleagues by not presenting your opinion as if it was the whole truth. A little humility and recognition that you are a contributor not the arbitrator of the truth would go a long way to making you a more appealing character.
 
Thank you
Leonard

A: What makes you think I’m not an appealing character, Leonard?.....
--

Subj: Totally unprofessional
Mikey,
 
You got called out by Tom Verducci and he was 100% right. If you can't handle all your jobs, then just stay home, wear an apron and let your wife continue to be the breadwinner for the family. You got busted and then you had to try to take a shot at Tom just as he was hanging up. You are a fraud and a sore loser. Better yet, go back to Wisconsin where they may buy your act. You can stay home all day and stare at a picture of Larry Fitzgerald's ass.

Tim McNamara

A: In case you haven’t noticed, I’m good for a couple of incidents like this a year – confrontations where I come off looking like a total douche-nozzle. So I’ve just filled my quota for the winter. Stick around, spring should bring another one.
--

Subj: Felger is an ASS

Felger is an a-hole and a complete embarrassment to Boston sports fans. He doesn’t know how to find the balance between asking the tough questions and sounding like a complete prick. Taking out my violin for how many jobs he has. He had to have the last word at the end, too. Is he eight-years old?

John Hokanson

A: It’s a gift I have. I was probably right (as I was with McAdam, Gammons, etc.), but I’m still the a-hole. Verducci and Torre have been back-peddling all over the country for a couple of weeks, blaming the media for playing up details that they had to know would be the first items covered in the book. Yet I’m the one who gets the schlong across my face. Typical.
--

Subj: Felger you are a punk

Nice move, Felger. You’re challenged for not being prepared when asking questions about a book you didn't read, and then you throw a cheap shot at the end of the interview. You’re the guy that throws a sucker punch at the end of a fight and then run for cover. YOU’RE A PUNK!

Tim O'Donovan

A: It was physically impossible for me to have read the book by the time we talked to Tom, but I couldn’t just say that, could I? I couldn’t keep my mouth shut or -- here’s an idea -- just play along. Noooooo. That would have been too simple.
--

Subj: Great job!!!
Felger,

Awesome interview.....great research!

Please move to another city!

Steve

A: Why would I want to go somewhere else, Steve? I’m having so much fun here.
--

Felger,
 
I have to tell you, I think you were 100% in the right. (Verducci) is being totally disingenuous (or naive) to think that those headline inducing quotes from the book aren't salacious and worth addressing. Your question as to why Torre chose to ``write’’ this book now was legitimate and deserved a direct answer. Finally, you had the honesty to admit to Tom that you hadn't had the chance to read the book, and he calls you unprofessional. Screw him. Does he really think that everyone he's being interviewed by during this promotional period has read the book? If so, he’s either stupid or a gigantic megalomaniac. Maybe next time he does an interview he should ask if everyone involved has read the book cover to cover and if they haven't he should decline. Yeah, I'm sure that if he had that knowledge in advance he would have declined to come onto the No. 1 AM drive-time radio show in the 9th largest market in the country. What a phony.
 
I knew you were going to get ripped by the emailers even as it was happening because, let's face it, you engender a lot of negative emotion among listeners, but I silently had your back the whole way while on the road. Keep up the good fight and keep asking the tough, uncomfortable question. You're entertaining, dude.
 
Russell
Merrimack, NH

A: Yup, I made the mistake of being up front about not reading the book. How dumb. Next time I’ll do what everyone else does: Fake it and play nice.
--

Subj: Verducci right on
Felger,

You were embarrassingly unprepared (with Verducci), and arrogant about it to boot. What makes you think sports commentators can just mail it in any more than anyone else and be competent at what they do? You were beyond unprofessional, even when Dennis tried to ease you out of it by gently commenting that you hadn’t read the book. Your weak attempt at the end of the interview to send him a parting shot showed he had hit a nerve.....do your homework.

Ken Lynch
Mont Vernon, NH 

A: Dennis tired to “ease” me out of it? He “gently” commented that I hadn’t read the book? How did I miss those signals?
--

Felger,

Is there anything you don't suck at?

Mitch
Hopedale

A: I have only two strengths: 1) I tan well. We’re doing a week in Ft. Myers for Comcast starting Monday, and just wait until you see the golden hue. 2) I’m honest. I don’t even like telling white lies. The rest? Mediocre at best.
--

Felgy,

You never fail to disappoint. The Verducci interview was top-5 stuff. You get major props for the way you went after him, but he did have a point. How do you critique something you did not read? Either way, it was outstanding to listen to and he did sound like a whiney bitch.
 
Rick

A: HE sounded like a whiney bitch? Where can I enter your parallel universe?
--

WEEI,

I honestly don't care that Felger works three jobs. If he doesn't have enough time to read the book then he shouldn't be part of the interview. Between the hours of 6-10 he has one job and last time I checked he was supposed to do that job professionally and with class.  That did not happen on your show with Felger during the interview with Verducci.

Participating in an interview with Verducci was unprofessional and flat out embarrassing for Felger. Due to his lack of preparation and knowledge regarding the book he shouldn't have been allowed to speak in the interview. I'm glad Verducci put him in his place. Felger had no right to chastise him, and I find it very sad that Felger doesn't even have the wherewithal to realize that he was wrong and was out of place. 

Working in the medical field I can compare what Felger did to a doctor walking into a patient's room and start asking questions without reviewing the chart. Completely unprofessional and embarrassing. I hope an apology is in order to Verducci.

Mike

A: Sorry, Tom…..

With the apology out of the way, I’d like to ask Mike the emailer something: Do you think Verducci was more upset that I hadn’t read the book, or that I was asking him an annoying question? That wasn’t my first question of the interview, you know. We had established the fact I hadn’t read the book. I think I had asked him two or three questions before we got to the one that blew up. Tom had no problem answering the earlier ones. He even made a point to say one of them was a good question. Why did he wait until I got to a question about Torre’s motivation for writing a tell-all book for him to mention my professionalism? Obviously, Verducci just didn’t like the question. It had nothing to do with whether I’d read the book or not. 
 
But, again, I’m the jackass. 
--

Felger,

Maybe you should have spent more time reading the book instead of fantasizing over Larry Fitzgerald ASS
 
Peter
Westfield

A: Now we’re getting to the root of the matter. I was distracted. 
--

Subj: Smoked!
Hey Felger,
 
How does Tom Verducci’s ass taste?
 
Eric
Providence

A: A little salty.
--

Felgy,
 
You're right on!  Verducci uses the gossip and innuendo to sell books and then gets torked off because that's all anyone wants to talk about. Why did he include Clemens' flaming testicles, was that an important aspect to Torrey's career? I was going to buy the book but since Verducci doesn't want anyone to talk about the Carson Kresly Clubhouse, I'll pass.
 
Robb
Attleboro

A: Believe me, if I wrote a book and had details about Roger Clemens getting his nuggets greased by a team trainer I’d have no problem talking about it. 
--

Subj: Verducci in a TKO over Felger

Wow. In effect, Felger states that he doesn't believe a professional (or maybe he doesn't consider himself a professional) should be prepared. He believes that an excuse for his lack of preparedness (i.e., lack of professionalism) is that he spreads himself too thin with other responsibilities, and therefore that excuses his lack of preparedness.   
 
Gee, as a lawyer, let me use that one the next time I'm in front of a judge:  ``Your Honor, I didn't read all of the file, because well, I have other cases which take up a lot of my time.’’ Or, I'll tell a client, ``Sorry, I didn't prepare for your case, but I have so much other work that I just didn't have the time.’’ 
 
Felger, think about what happened, about what you said, and about exactly what it means to be a professional -- whether that's a journalist, lawyer, doctor, engineer, etc.
 
Regards,
Tony

A: I think your first word sums up my performance in the interview perfectly. Wow.
--

Subj: Tom Ver-douchey
Michael,

Thanks for laying the smack down on Tom Ver-Douchey! He calls you unprofessional?! You hit the nail right on the head: Don't put the gossip stuff in the book if you don't want people to talk about it. Well done, sir.

Regards,
Rich O'Brien
Hudson

A: Sounds a bit like something someone once said: ``If you don’t respect my opinion don’t have me on the freaking show!’’
--

Subj: Bitch slap
Hey Mike,

Loved hearing you called out by Tom. You were put in your place. BITCH SLAPPED!
 
Paul Chalifour
Painting Contractor

A: Too bad the Big Show didn’t hear it. They could have done a bit on it. Or maybe ragged on me some. Oh, wait…..
--

Felger,
 
You are one arrogant SOB. Verducci was absolutely correct -- you are unprofessional! Read the book and do some prep rather than mailing it in. If you're not prepared then shut up.
 
Matt
Hopkinton

A: In case you missed the producers’ take, check it out. Sums it up nicely.

--

Subj: Felger = unprofessional
Hey Felger,
Way to go interviewing Tom Verducci. He was wrong though – you weren’t being unprofessional, you were being an a-hole. When you didn’t like his answers you started giving him an attitude and acting in a really dismissive and condescending d-bag way. It’s hilarious to hear you tell John Dennis he’s spewing ``a-hole rhetoric’’ when he’s talking about executive pay and then you go and behave in an even worse fashion when you interview Verducci and Schefter. You might be the biggest hypocrite in Massachusetts next to Barney Frank. You and Barney are a lot a like actually. Maybe you can talk about men’s asses with Barney – I’m sure he’d love that.
Ted
Boston
A: Still not over the election, huh Ted? Sorry, babe. Say it along with me: Yes we can!
--
Mike,
 
I was glad to see you take Verducci to task when it came to his explanation of Torre's motives. IMO, he was trying to have it both ways. He and Torre put all of those behind-the-scenes details in the book because, as he claimed, it was important to the history of the game, but then down-played it all as stuff that everyone already knew. He can't have it both ways. If we all knew it, then why include it?
 
I also think he and Dennis were totally disingenuous to claim that you have to read the book to understand that it wasn't Torre's intention to write a ``tell-all.’’ Just because these guys were clever enough to write in a way so as to disguise the true motivation as something else doesn't mean that the intention wasn't clear. Dennis got the wool pulled over his eyes. Of course, these authors, especially Verducci, knew full well that these details would cause a sensation. That's exactly why those details got leaked in advance of the book being released. Of course they knew it would sell books, so let’s not pretend that it wasn't the point.
 
Verducci may well be correct that Torre only told the historical truth, but that isn't the point. The point is whether a manager, in whom the players are supposed to be able to confide, should be the very person who tells all of these sensational details to the rest of the world. Is it ethical for a person in such a position to vomit all of this for public consumption? I simply cannot imagine Francona committing this sort of betrayal. I hate the Yankees, but as a fan, I always had tremendous respect for what I thought Torre and Jeter were. Now that's down to just Jeter. If I were a Dodger player, I'd have nothing to do with Torre except within the narrowest limits of his capacity as manager. Anyway, good for you that you ended the interview with that last jab about his disingenuousness. I'm glad to see that you were not trying to protect ``one of your own.’’
 
Regards,
Norm Trudel
Gorham, Maine

A: It seems the Dodgers are on the same page as you, Norm. 
--

Subj: Losing dogs?
Hey Michael,

You made a comment last week about the Steelers being ``losing dogs'' when you were ignorantly alluding to Santonio Holmes' celebration after the game winning TD. I guess what you were talking about was their Super Bowl Championship drought from SB XIV to SB XL? So tell me, Michael, are the Patriots ``losing dogs'' now since they haven't won a Super Bowl Championship since SB XXXIX? Most certainly they were ``losing dogs’’ to SB XXXVI, right? Because they won piss-all from the time of their inception in the NFL in 1960 to the 2001 season. In fact they were the laughingstocks of the NFL, isn't that right, Michael?

So yeah, go ahead and slam on the Steelers because the likes of you, Pete Sheppard, Bill Simmons and every other local homer seems to love to do that regardless of the Steelers success over the past 40 years, but remember that your New England Patriots were long the doormats of the NFL and it appears they may be in the midst of another Championship drought for a long time to come.

All the best,
Neil Fidler

A: Very unprofessional of you, Neil. You enter my mailbag and you haven't even taken the time to read exactly what I was writing? Time to quit one of your jobs. I never called the Steelers losing dogs. I said they were choking dogs. You have to admit, that's what they were for the balance of Bill Cowher's tenure. Anyway, their Super Bowl victories have certainly hurt my ability to use that phrase. Too bad, because Holmes' stupid, childish and selfish display would have been the classic, big-mouth, Steelers choking-dog sort of way to lose a game.
--

Subj: Mailbag: Why let facts get in the way?

As a man with an attractive wife, I can understand how the blood in your system might not reach your brain all the time. Really, it's a legit excuse. That is the only reason I can apply to you and your repeated references to the Steelers and the exaggerated claims about the use of banned substances. Usually, your facts are dead on, but why not in this case?
 
First, I noticed that you used the plural word ``doctors.’’ Steelers team doctors have NEVER been implicated in supplying their players with banned substances. One team doctor and the Steelers parted ways a year or two back after it was learned that he was using HGH in his private practice. It was wise of them to distance themselves from any sense of impropriety. There was never a link established between his studies with HGH and the team's players. The doctor was not charged with doing anything illegal and the NFL never made any accusations as well.
 
Then you mentioned that 18 players (the real number is 16) under the age of 59 had died prematurely....7 of them from heart failure and made some jump of faith from that to the medical staff shortening their lives for the good of the team. Have you actually read any of the details of these players’ deaths?
 
The Heart Attack Seven were: Mike  Webster, Jim Clack, defensive back Ray Oldham, defensive back Dave Brown, defensive lineman Steve Furness, quarterback Joe Gilliam and offensive guard Tyrone McGriff. Of that group, Oldham, Brown, Furness, Gilliam and McGriff were never linked to steroid use. Furness had a family history with heart ailments and Gilliam was a tragic figure with homelessness, heroin addiction and alcoholism as highlights.
 
Of the remaining nine, one died when a tree fell on him, one of kidney and skin disease, one from a suicide by car accident, one from a weight lifting accident, three others in car accidents, one of cancer, and one by suicide from drinking delicious antifreeze (Terry Long, a whack job and known steroid user, who was kicked off the team). As you can see, the vast, vast majority of those deaths were accidental or caused by other factors besides steroids. So why overplay the angle?
 
I'd love to rant some more, but my wife just walked in and things are getting fuzzy. Keep up the normally good work. But please, a little more fact and a little less ball busting.
 
Go Celts!
Jon

A: You’re probably right, Jon. It’s just a coincidence their linebackers look like a WWE crew and their former players are dropping off faster than Spinal Tap drummers. Just a string a bad luck. Got it.
--

Felger,
You're saying that had the Cardinals won the Super Bowl it would have been a bad thing because it would have meant that ``any team can win one?'' Isn't that the goal of parity? So you're saying you don't want Parity?
The Great BHL
A: Parity is fine, but I just think it’s more meaningful when established teams from cities with real fans win championships. The Steelers mean more to a greater number of people than the Cardinals do. I mean, really. Is there such a thing as a hard-core Cardinals fan? The Steelers are in the blood of their fans. The folks in Phoenix barely remember the Cardinals were even in the thing. I do believe that if the Cardinals had won it would have cheapened the title a bit. It would have meant that any Mickey Mouse franchise can win one. As a Patriots fan, wouldn’t you rather be among a select group?
--
Michael, 

As heroic as Kurt Warner played throughout most of the Super Bowl, he threw that bone-headed interception to James Harrison (remind you of Tebucky Jones in 2002 Super Bowl?). Then he clearly had a good shot at making the tackle, but instead chose to back off and not even try. Pathetic. Those two bone-headed plays cost his team the game because of the 14-point swing. Throw your body in front of him and try to make the tackle, Kurt! You're a football player! Then it's only a seven-point swing.

Rick, 
Winthrop, MA

A: Why has Warner not been criticized more for that pass? It's like everyone went straight to his Hall of Fame induction and skipped the dumbest play (next to Holmes' celebration and Wilson's penalty on the field goal) in the entire game. 
--

Felgy,

Tell it like it is, brother. Worst coaching job to ever win the Super Bowl. Pittsburgh should have won by 28. Tomlin is a fraud. Please say what needs to be said. PS, yes I'm bitter because they didn't cover. But the coaching job was Tom O'Brien-esque, playing not to lose in a big game.

Jeff McLeod
Marshfield

A: As I said, Jeff, Marty Schottenheimer would have been proud of Tomlin’s Super Bowl effort.
--

Felger
 
I really wanted to email a question about the Super Bowl but in two weeks all anyone will be talking about around here is the Beanpot finals and what kind of gas mileage the Sox equipment truck will get and the game will be an afterthought. Thanks, RB (should be DB). But I'll shoot my quick questions out to you anyway. Why no booth replay on the last Warner challenge? It didn't look like an empty hand to me. What took so long for Warner to look towards the ``Ass Man,'' Larry Fitzgerald? And didn't this game remind you of the Pats Carolina game almost to a T? With the Steelers playing the part of the pats and the Cards playing the part of Carolina. Can't wait to hear your thoughts in two weeks
 
Mo

A: Inexcusable that the league didn’t review that last play, Mo. I don’t know how anyone could feel differently. And I thought the Carolina-Pats Super Bowl was a much better game from start to finish than this one. Not only were the Patriots and Panthers better teams than the ones we saw two weeks ago, I thought it was a game that featured everything: Intense, hard-hitting defense that gave way to wide open fireworks. The Rams Super Bowl was special, of course, but I felt the Panthers game was the best all-around Super Bowl I’ve seen.
--

Michael Felger,

Everyone complained about the officiating in this years Super Bowl, in particular the roughing the passer penalty against Arizona. If that officiating crew had done the Patriots' Big Game there would have been a lot of laundry on the field. Brady took an absolute beating that game. If it wasn't a sack it was a knock down (lots of late hits!), and many of the hits were high to the helmet. The NFL needs to standardize the rules and live by them. 
 
Don
Belmont NH 

A: I absolutely hated the roughing call on Dansby, even though it came on first down at midfield and probably didn’t end up impacting the final outcome. It just felt like one of those killer pass interference flags that changes the tenor of a game. Again, if I wanted to see championships decided by touch fouls I’d watch the NBA Finals.
--

Michael,

Wanted to call the show Sunday morning but could not. Enjoy your Favre rants. I have a Steeler fan story, and it's mostly true:

My wife and I spent our 25th anniversary at the Del Coronado in San Diego. It was October 2005, and as luck would have it, the Steelers were visiting San Diego for the Monday night game. And Steelers fans DO travel well; lots of fan support. It's amazing how many of their fans will defer much needed dental work to fork over the $500+ commanded by the Del just to chase their heroes.

But there they were on a sun-drenched Monday morning, sitting in the wicker chairs out on the promenade, sweating in their black jerseys, and straining sudsy eye-openers through their remaining teeth. Mimosa and bloodymary sales plummeted on that day; ante-meridian draughts became king of the Del. Well, across the street from the hotel on Orange Ave is a little public fountain on a very busy corner, cute and quaint, and typically a target for pennies and wishes. But in broad daylight, a middle-aged St'ller fan made a special deposit on that day, right in front of my wife. It was just number one though, so we counted our blessings. Hope you are back next fall for the Sunday morning show.

Cheers
Paul

A: Good story, Paul. In fairness, on the evolutionary scale of cave-dwelling fans, I don’t put Steelers fans among the pond scum with Jets fans, Mets fans and anyone from Philly. Steelers fans are gross, don’t get me wrong. But I don’t feel that element of violence that I do with Eagles fans. As you mention, they’re more likely to piss themselves. That’s relatively harmless.
--

Hi Mike 

Liked your co-hosting bit in the mornings last week. Hilarious. Totally agree with your stance on this whole Phelps non-story, which has become a story. Love the holier than thou people coming out of nowhere feeling bad for the sponsors and saying he let the world down. His DWI four years ago is definitely way more of a big deal and was sidestepped. These ``outraged'' people are probably the same ones who laugh at Barkley's recent mishap.

Kellogg's pulled their sponsorship of Phelps, which is not exactly a shocker. I can see why they did -- they sell cereal and they can choose from dozens of recognizable athletes to put on their Wheaties boxes. But do you think Speedo would ever pull their sponsorship? He IS swimming. There is no equal in the world of aquatics. What are they going to do, all of a sudden jump to Jason Lezak or maybe the Russian Synchronized swim team to sell Bedazzles one pieces or get Mark Spitz with his mustache and try to remarket their old school banana hammock? Also who the hell is the guy who was going to buy an Omega watch but now wont because of this fiasco? 

Rob
Nashua

A: It’s just good to see the authorities in South Carolina keeping the streets safe from beer pong.
--

Mikey,
 
I must object to your comments about the Cops in Columbia, SC and the Michael Phelps incident. Just because Phelps is a celebrity that does not make him above the law and Sheriff Kenneth Lott is out to prove that. Yeah he has arrested several people from that party because drugs are illegal and should not be used period. Maybe you and Tanguay light up a blunt or two and get away with it, but it doesn't make it right. Make fun of the law down here but realize they are trying to do right and do the job they get paid for -- unlike the donut eating, coffee swilling cops you have in Boston.
 
R.J.
Columbia, SC

A: Well, you’re right about Tanguay. Get him around a bong and he’s like a vacuum cleaner. As for Sheriff Lott, it seems Crockett was getting criticized for just going after the famous guy at the party, so he’s started rounding up all the poor coeds at the house that night to prove it’s not just about Phelps. Brilliant! A tremendous use of taxpayer dollars there. I think old Buford T. Justice should call in all available units.
--

Felger,

You keep arguing that Manny is a winner, such a good post season performer that the Sox had to keep him and they may have cost themselves another ring by trading him. I never agreed with that, and in my mind even remembered him being somewhat of an underachiever in October. So, I crunched some numbers. The Red Sox had to look at his postseason stats before last year as part of their judgment to keep him or let him go, so I did not include last year’s playoffs. I then took those totals and calculated what a 162 game average would look like with those stats.  I took his 162 game averages from Baseball Reference and extrapolated the difference. 

(Bryan included some stats I'll spare you from. You get the point). 

Please note that his batting average in the 162 post season games would be 45 points lower, his on-base is almost 40 points lower and his slugging percentage is 80 points lower. Also, he has been in nine post seasons (10 if you include last year) and has won two World Series, so please do not say all he does is win because it just isn’t true.
 
Bryan,
Melrose
 
A: I never said the Sox cost themselves a ring by trading him. I’ve only made one point on Manny that I think people consistently miss: His antics haven’t prevented his teams from winning at a high level. Other than Jeter, Mo Rivera and a few other Yankees, Manny has won as much as any ballplayer I can think of over the past 15 years. You said it yourself: 10 playoff appearances in 15 full seasons. Isn’t that really good? I keep hearing how he tears clubhouses apart and poisons the atmosphere. I keep hearing how you can't win with him -- and the facts just don't bear that out. The facts say that his teams have historically been very successful. Again, 10 postseason trips in 15 years. Seven trips to the LCS. Four trips to the World Series. Two titles. Given that track record, it's hard to make the case that he's prevented many teams from reaching their potential.
--

Felger,
 
I have to say that you have good taste in music as you are a Pearl Jam fan and used to play The Kings of Leon in your old radio show opener. You also are on record as being a no big fan of the George W. Bush administration. That is why I am shocked, SHOCKED at how you were ripping Bruce Springsteen last week, laughing when a caller referred to The Boss as ``the Brett Favre of rock and roll.'' Are you freaking kidding me?!  
 
You obviously never have been to a Springsteen show; you couldn't have been at Gillette this summer when he played a three hour kick ass concert that was hands down the best show I have ever seen. This guy is almost sixty years old but plays harder and longer in concert than most of today's acts. You also didn't listen to his excellent "Magic" album, which was an all out assault on Bush and his policies of torture, wiretapping and the huge mistake of the Iraq War. It was his best album in 23 years, and not many acts put out such great work this late in their careers.  
 
Bob Walton
North Andover

A: I’ve been to a half-dozen Springsteen shows. All were roughly the same. Mostly the same songs. Mostly the same shtick between the songs. It's a good act, but it's just that, Bob. An act. I do give Bruce full credit for his effort level. He always brings it, or at least he tries. I used to see the Dead all the time, and over half the time they mailed it in. Just came on stage and laid a big fart. So I respect Bruce for that. 

But I absolutely HATE the politics. I can’t stand it at Pearl Jam shows, either. When Eddie starts on one of his monologues I go get a beer. If I wanted that crap I’d go to a political rally. That's one thing I appreciated about the Dead. They never said a word. Just played the music. And if Jerry so much as grunted into the microphone we pissed ourselves like we were Steelers fans waiting for the Monday Night game to start. I saw the Dead around 60 times and I can't remember Jerry so much as saying more than five words. Love that.
--

Subj: What a phony, and his music sucks too!

Does this sum up the Boss, calling his Wal-Mart deal a ``mistake?'' Why doesn't he give his money to labor groups, charity or better still, cancel the contract!

Semper Fi
Bill Donovan
USMC Ret.

A: Another thing I can't stand about Springsteen. He complains about the price of beer and all that stuff and then charges a fortune for a ticket. Then he hops on his private jet back to Jersey. 
--

Felger,

Love your comments about Springsteen. I was considering seeing him in April when he plays in Boston. BTW - ticket prices are ``only'' $65 and $95, which give the economic meltdown is more reasonable. Several of the ``headline concerts'' were over $250 per ticket. Also loved your comments about XMAS! Every LEAP year would make it ``special again.''

Dennis
Wilmington

A: All that being said about Springsteen, I really liked him at halftime. 
--

Felger,

I cannot believe that Gary and Donny said that one of the reasons we lost vs. LA was that we did not have Scal. This is a guy that did not play one minute in the Finals last out. Granted he has been playing better, but in all honestly there was nowhere but up. Can we please stop the ball washing? Call Gary and Donny out!!!!

Erik Barry

A: Okay, Donny and Gary, you ball-washing green-teamers. How about criticizing the front office for not paying Posey? Then we wouldn’t even be talking about Scal. 

Actually, I got Gary right here. What do you say Gare-bear?

GT: Obviously, you are not watching the games. The fact is Brian Scalabrine has been a different player this year. Every time he’s been called upon he’s delivered defensively. Considering the fact the Celts lost a one-point game in overtime, without question, Brian Scalabrine would have helped defend Pau Gasol’s cuts to the basket. No ball-washing. Just watching the game. I suggest you do the same. 

MF: Bam! You just got “Verducci-ed,” Eric.
--

Hey there,

I was listening to the show last Sunday and heard you mention Steve Largent's hit on Mike Harden. As a lifelong Seahawks fan, and a bigger Steve Largent fan, that play has been engrained in my head for years. The best part, pretty sure there was a flag on the play and the interception was nullified anyway. Here is a link to the video.  Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0un51WFVrUI

 
Trevor

A: This is from our conversation a few weeks ago on the football show where I said I wished someone would do to Steelers safety Ryan Clark what Largent did to that Broncos safety in the 80’s. I couldn’t remember Harden’s name, but I remembered the play. Paul Perillo didn’t, which may have been the only time that happened all season. This is the only reason I’ve included this email. I’m gloating.
--

Subj: Backlash vote

Sorry to see that The Wood didn't make the final cut in the Babes Competition on the planet Mikey site. Only logical explanation for this smokin hot POA not to move forward in the contest was her major blunder in not disclosing that she married a large rectal aperture.
 
Bob Anderson

A: I had to look up word “aperture,” Bob. Thank you for raising the bar on the language here and not just calling me an a-hole.
--

Hey Mike,

How can you expect to do a mailbag every week? It might take something riveting like batting stance guy off the website.
 
Rick

A: Ain't it the truth? Lord knows, we don’t want to cut into the Red Sox coverage. There’s not enough of that out there. Don’t we all miss the daily Varitek coverage? Hey Rob, can’t we get some of that back? I miss talking about the No. 9 hitter EVERY SINGLE DAY.
--

Subj: Entertainment

Hi Mike, I never miss a show when you are on because I think you are a riot! The things you come out with....I laugh all the way to work! My question is does your wife find you entertaining, or is she like the rest of us wives that don't find their husbands funny AT ALL! I include myself as not being entertained by my own husband. Please keep up the good work. 

Sandy
Blackstone

A: I'm being completely honest when I say this (remember, it’s one of my two strengths): The Wood barely tolerates me. Really not a big fan. At all. I think Verducci has a higher opinion of me.

There you have it. A record-setter. And worth every syllable, right? Aren’t you glad I didn’t quit this job?

Don’t answer that.
--

Felger can be seen nightly on Comcast Sportsnet and reached at mfelger@weei.com