Mailbag: Alex Brown and AFC South

Joe in Illinois writes: There has been a lot of offseason talk about how the Colts could use a solid third defensive end to add to the rotation with Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis. Do you think the Colts should/will go after Alex Brown now that he has been released?

Paul Kuharsky: I don’t think he’s what they are looking for. They have two guys who are getting older. If Freeney and Mathis are getting older, then it makes sense for the third end to be younger and able to eventually graduate into one of their spots.

Brown, 31 in June, is only one year younger than Raheem Brock, who the Colts released. My NFC North pal Kevin Seifert says Brown can still play as a durable, six-sack type and that people can do a lot worse if they are in the market for a veteran.

I’ve also fielded the Brown question about the Jaguars and Titans.

Both have already added a veteran end, Jacksonville with top-of-the-line free agent Aaron Kampman, Tennessee with journeyman underachiever Jason Babin. I think they’ll both be looking to add another high in the draft.

So I don’t expect Brown’s landing spot is in the AFC South.

Keith Armbrester in Texas writes: We know that defensive tackle is a need for the Houston Texans. Do you see the Texans possibly trading up for Ndamukong Suh. If so, do you think that would be a smart move and what in your opinion do you think they would have to give up to move up and get him?

Paul Kuharsky: To get from 20 to top three for Suh would cost a fortune. They need a tackle, sure. They are not getting that one. With Houston’s poor recent first-round record there, many think the Texans can fare better at defensive back or running back and look to tackle in the second or third round. I would go that way myself.

Jason in Tallahassee/Jacksonvillle writes: I previously asked you who you thought would be a likely trade partner with the Jags at the 10 spot and I definitely agree that predicting a partner is extremely hard. You then questioned the reasoning for my trying to find a way to trade down for more picks, stating that you would rather have quality over quantity. While that is all fine and dandy, I just don't see amazing talent at the 10 spot. Gene Smith is on record as saying he goes for base hits. He is also on record as saying that he wants more draft picks. This draft is deep on the defensive side of the ball, which I believe will be address heavily in this draft. It seems clear to me that a later 1st and an additional 2nd or 3rd would be essential to GM Gene's plans.

Paul Kuharsky: Good points, Jason. I was probably too hasty in that assessment. Especially because the Jags lack a second rounder, they could try hard to trade down if they find a willing partner. I don’t think trading down is essential, but it certainly could be helpful. Still, if they believe there is a game-changer at 10, I’d have no problem with them staying put to take him.

Gregory Hall in San Francisco,CA writes: Paul, will the Titans be moving LenDale around draft time?

Paul Kuharsky: Moving him where? Someone has to want him. (See the trade piece of this.)

And what happens if Chris Johnson gets hurt? Who are you giving carries to then? I think their answer to that is still White.

Damian in Chandler, AZ writes: Hey Paul, I didn't see the logic in your response to Chris's question about the new overtime rule. It's not fair to subject a team to another quarter's worth of possible injuries?? Come on, the league is considering expanding the schedule to 18 games. That's eight more quarters of possible injuries! And has any player ever said, "I hope we miss the playoffs because those extra games just mean more opportunities for injuries"? By your reasoning, there should be no overtime and a game with the score tied at the end of regulation should just be a tie. I agree with Chris: play a full overtime period. Further, if you want to avoid overtime, just win the game in regulation.

Paul Kuharsky: Every team would be subject to the two additional games. Only two teams would be subject to the additional quarter. It skews the next week’s game for those two teams – there is no arguing it, it’s fact.

It’s not an option. Players won’t go for it and the league doesn’t want to install an overtime that the union objects to.

As for winning the game in regulation, don't you think every team that's ever gone into OT had that intention? Talk about easier said than done.

Eric from Raleigh, NC writes: Paul, I read your two reasons for why you don't like the new OT rule, and I want to bring you over to my side. You said that it created "unnatural" football in two ways. First the teams would go for it on fourth down, much like a team does in the fourth quarter when they are down and time is running out, in regulation. So that's still natural crunch time football, which is what OT should be. Second, if you win the coin toss choose to receive, get the ball first and give points to the other team with a safety, why shouldn't you lose? Forget about the point amounts. I'm not saying everything about the new rule is perfect, but I disagree with those two reasons.

Paul Kuharsky: You say it’s “natural crunch time football” -- but in overtime the clock would have no bearing in what we’re talking about. A team wouldn’t be going for it on fourth down because time was running out and it needed to score quickly. It would be going for it because it had to match a field goal. That’s a different animal, not the same one you are pointing to.