We had our chat Tuesday. We have it every Tuesday at noon ET, and if you didn't know that you really should drop by one of these Tuesdays. The chats are one of my favorite parts of the week, and I like to help myself get to sleep at night by believing my regular readers feel the same way. In order to accomplish this, I make it a rule never to read the comments at the bottom of the transcript of my chat.
Anyway, some highlights from this week's edition:
Dr. King from Dallas is one of these "Tony Romo can't perform in big spots" people and asked me why the Dallas Cowboys "waste time with a QB like Romo just because he has sexy stats, when you can find a lot of QBs who win when it counts?"
Dan Graziano: Because that's a bunch of garbage, "can win when it counts." Too much goes into that other than QB performance. Did Romo fail to win the Week 17 game in NJ because he's not a good clutch player, or because the defensive players kept letting fullbacks jump over them? These arguments get too simplistic. Give me the excellent quarterback and I'll take my chances that eventually things break right in the clutch.
Steve from Delaware cited some mock drafts that have Stanford's Coby Fleener going to the New York Giants at No. 32 and asked whether I think the Giants really would take a tight end in the first round.
DG: I do not, Steve. They did take [Jeremy] Shockey in the first round once upon a time, but that was because they believed him to be a special case. It's possible they feel that way about Fleener, but I'd be surprised.
Steve from Bristol asked about the Washington Redskins' free-agent approach. Steve is of the opinion that, looking at the players they've signed at wide receiver and the secondary, that the Redskins are taking a quantity-over-quality approach, hoping competition will make some of these guys better.
DG: I can see where you're coming from, but they actually targeted Pierre Garcon and Josh Morgan as guys they believed could grow and thrive in their system. So it's not just that they were trying to build up quantity, play the percentages and hope something came of it. I think they really see those guys as good fits for the offense they plan to run with RG3. And as guys who can grow with him.
*Editor's note: I do agree with Steve that the quantity/competition idea is at work in their plans for the secondary, where they didn't really get any of their top choices.
And Phil from Hauppauge, N.Y., asked this: "Given Michael Vick's age, history of injury, and failure to develop the analytic part of his game, have we already seen the best he has to offer the Eagles?"
DG: Yes, it's possible that we might have. It's possible -- even likely -- that he'll never again approach his 2010 production. But that doesn't mean that analytic part can't improve, or that he can't protect the ball better this year and play better than he did in 2011.
Check out that link up there for the whole transcript, and feel free to drop by next Tuesday. We'd love to have you.