There's no Pulitzer for "best online chat about a locked-out sport during its offseason," but if they add that category this year, I think we have a chance. If you missed today's chat, I know it's not your fault. I know you desperately wanted to come by but got caught up at work, stuck in traffic or trapped under something heavy. So I've got you covered with some of the highlights:
Brendan from D.C. asked which would be better for the Redskins, to go with John Beck as the starting QB and have a "75 percent chance of getting Luck, Landry or the USC QB (can't think of his name) or spend money to bring in a washed up QB that will give you hope?"
Dan Graziano: "Guy's name is Matt Barkley. And given where the Redskins are right now, I might well choose the first plan. Next year's draft is stocked with QB talent, as you say. If Shanahan thinks he's more likely to find his long-term QB solution in the 2012 draft than in the 2011 free agent pool, then he's wise to avoid spending assets on a potentially disappointing veteran for a second year in a row."
NS from NYC asked if I thought the Giants would be "on the decline for next couple of years? Their defense struggled last year? O line is getting up there and they don't have a real threat WR after Plax. Their only saving grace is Running game and that is stretching it."
DG: "I believe they would do well to address looming needs on the offensive line before they become real problems. I do, however, disagree with you about their receivers. I believe they have excellent receivers."
biochemskinsfan from St. Louis asked whether we were more likely to see the Michael Vick who dominated the first half of the season or the one whose second-half numbers were more ordinary.
DG: "I think he got tired and wore down in the second half of the season. I think, the way he plays, that's bound to happen. But I also think his stamina will be better in 2011 than it was in 2010, since it had been so long since he's played a full season or anything close to it."
Josh from Louisville believes he has the answer to the Cowboys' running game: "Start Choice, sprinkle in Jones 10-12 plays. Let Barber finish the game. Put him in at the end of the 3rd quarter and all of the 4th in place of Choice."
DG: First, Barber's probably not going to be there. But more importantly, what's wrong with the coaches figuring out the right situations for each guy and rotating them accordingly. Who cares who "starts" and how many plays they get? They should each get the right plays, and that should probably change from game to game. The Cowboys are uniquely suited to operate this way, and I believe doing so is critical to their success.
There's lots more if you click that link up there. And we do this every Tuesday at noon. It's always awesome. Take an hour off next week and join us. You can tell your boss I said it was okay.