POSTED 10:22 p.m. EDT, April 7, 2006

LORD FAVRE ANNOUNCING HIS INTENTIONS ON SATURDAY?

Packers quarterback Brett Favre is expected to announce at a Saturday morning press conference his intentions for the upcoming NFL season.

Favre's status has been the subject of much discussion and debate over the past several weeks.  We've heard, from a solid source and on multiple occasions, that Favre previously has told the team he is returning.  The NFL has scheduled two Packers games for Monday night football, and on December 21 the NFL Network will air what it has described as Favre's home finale.

Apart from the information to which we've been privy, we can't imagine Favre announcing that he's retiring in the early morning hours at his charity golf tournament.  If he were walking away, he'd conduct the presser at the tail end of the tourney.

So put us down $10 bucks on the "Favre returns" square.

POSTED 10:10 p.m. EDT, April 7, 2006

WILSON UPS THE ANTE

Since the NFL owners approved the new CBA/revenue sharing plan, Bills owner Ralph Wilson generally kept fairly quiet.  Sure, he initially explained that he joined the Bengals in voting against the plan because, as he said at the time, he didn't have the time to understand it.

But in the several weeks that passed after the vote, Wilson said nothing.  He remained quiet through the ownership meetings of last week.

This week, however, it's been a far different story.

Three days ago, Wilson expressed concern regarding "the long-term viability" of the Bills in a meeting with New York Governor George Pataki.   On Friday, Wilson went a giant leap farther, calling for a grass roots campaign to change the portions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement that potentially disadvantage the Bills.

"We're going to fight very hard," Wilson said.  "I don't know how long the team will be [in Buffalo]."

"We need people in political power to see that we get a fair treatment under this new extension from the league," Wilson added.

In our view, Wilson is employing premature scare tactics.  For example, Wilson claims that a teams loses its ability to participate in revenue sharing if it is sold. 

"Hypothetically speaking," writes Judy Wichrowksi of WGRZ-TV, "that means any future owner of the Buffalo Bills would not receive money from the league's wealthiest teams, and have an even harder time making the franchise financially viable in Western New York."

Bullcrap, we say.

First of all, 80 percent of total NFL revenue already is shared, and will continue to be shared.  The sale of a team has no relationship whatsoever to whether the team gets, for example, a cut of the billion-dollar television money. 

Second, the league has not yet articulated the qualifying (or, as the case may be, disqualifying) factors for a team to participate in supplemental revenue sharing.  So whether the sale of a team shuts it out from supplemental revenue sharing has yet to be determined.

Indeed, Wilson acknowledges that he doesn't know what the qualifiers are going to be.  So why sound the alarm before the qualifiers have been determined?  (Unless, of course, Wilson is hoping to influence the members of a committee that has not yet even been appointed.)

Third, it makes no sense to tell a team that selling the franchise slams the door on any chance at supplemental revenue sharing.  There's no connection between the two concepts.  Moreover, such a position would reduce the potential value of every franchise in a low-revenue market, since a sale of the franchise automatically would choke off a chunk of the new revenues.

We think that Wilson is trying to gin up some Nigerian yellow cake uranium in this regard, hoping that citizens of Western New York will conclude that when the team is sold upon Wilson's passing, the franchise will no longer be eligible for any amount of revenue sharing.

"The new guard don't have the same value of the league that the old guard did," Wilson said.  "I don't think that a lot of the new owners were afraid of an uncapped year. We were not afraid of an uncapped year, or a strike in 1987," Wilson said. "[At the owners meetings], we don't talk football, we talk money.  I'd like to go to an NFL meeting where we talk football."

But this issue boils down to whether all teams are trying to maximize revenues.  If a team attempts to identify new revenue streams and/or to expand existing revenue streams and can't do it, the team will be eligible for a bigger chunk of the supplemental revenue pie. 

But, you see, to make money you sometimes have to spend money.  Is it an accident that the Patriots have 40 marketing employees . . . and the Bengals have only three?

For Ralph Wilson (or any future owner of the Bills), the question is whether the franchise is willing to invest the time, money, and effort necessary to make as much money as possible.  If the organization tries and fails, the organization will get help from the high-revenue teams.  If the organization doesn't try, it gets nothing.

Wilson, by all appearances, is more interested in spending his time complaining about the rules that now apply instead of undertaking an effort to grow his revenues.  He pooh-poohs, for example, the potential monetary benefits of selling the naming rights to the Bills' stadium, which coincidentally is currently named after him.

"You wouldn't get enough money from my name on that stadium, to sign a college free agent," Wilson said.

But how does he know this?  Has he tried to sell the naming rights?  Is the best offer he has received only $250,000 a year?
 
We've got a ton of admiration for what Ralph Wilson has done for the NFL and for Buffalo.  But much of his Friday press conference doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to us, and we wonder whether Wilson really has put together the best possible strategy for dealing with the fact that 30 of his co-members of the Billionaire Boys Club have moved his Brie.

Don't believe us?  Listen to Wilson press conference, which is available at the team's official site.  We could carve out some of his quotes, but we don't want to create the appearance that we're being disrespectful to him.  Listen to the press conference, and decide for yourself.

Look, we think that the Bills are an integral part of the NFL, and an important aspect of life in Buffalo.  We believe that the Bills should remain a part of Western New York indefinitely into the future.  Our concern is that Wilson is going about this thing in a manner that will win him little brownie points with the league office or with his fellow owners -- making all of them less inclined to do him, and in turn the franchise, any favors moving forward.

POSTED 3:27 p.m. EDT; UPDATED 5:09 p.m. EDT, April 7, 2006

LORD FAVRE SPEAKS (AGAIN)

Packers quarterback Brett Favre has addressed the status of his decision on whether to return for 2006.

For the seventeenth time since the 2005 season ended.

Speaking to Chris Havel of the Green Bay Press-Gazette (whom we hear mercilessly ripped us a couple of weeks ago for our report that Favre already has told the team he's returning), Favre said that his decision could be announced by the weekend or in the early part of next week.

"I want to do what's best, obviously, for me and my family," Favre said. "But regardless of what people might think, I don't want to jeopardize the future of the team.  I don't want to do that.  I think that the people that know me, including those in the organization, know that."

Well, Brett, if you don't want to "jeopardize the future of the team," you shouldn't come back at all.  The team isn't going to win the Super Bowl in 2006, and you've already said that 2006, if you play, will be your last year.  So you'll only be helping "the future of the team" if you allow the team to find out whether Aaron Rodgers can play sooner rather than later.

Favre's biggest concern seems to be the quality (or lack thereof) of the team's offensive line.  

"I definitely don't want to beat up the guys that we have on our team," Favre said, apparently borrowing a page from the Peyton Manning's Handbook on Trying to Be a Good Teammate.  "The guys that we have are hard workers and determined to win and all that, but I don't see right now where our offensive line is better." 

So is he concerned about the line's ability to protect him?

"It's a concern in the sense -- call me crazy if you want -- not that I’m afraid of getting hit, but that I want to win," Favre said.  "Of course, I don't want to get beat up, but we've got a new offense going in, so players like [guard] Will Whitticker are starting all over.  It's like he's a rookie again.  He's got great potential, but it's going to be different for him.  Scott Wells may have to move to center full time.  I think he's a fine player, guard or center, but at some point you ask yourself, 'Who are you replacing guys with?'  From a coach's standpoint you have to say the right things, that we'll be competitive and we'll win, and I truly believe Mike McCarthy will do a fine job.  But really, what have we done to replace the guys that we've lost on the line?"

We understand what Favre is saying, but under that reasoning there's no way he should be coming back, since the team hasn't done -- and now can't do -- anything to upgrade the offensive line.  Any of the players who would have helped improve the blocking via free agency (e.g., LeCharles Bentley, Steve Hutchinson, Larry Allen, Eric Shaffer) are long gone, and the Packers never made a play for any of them.  Wayne Gandy was available via trade, but the Packers apparently didn't get involved in the bidding.  The only thing left is the draft, and the Pack likely draft too low to get D'Brickashaw Ferguson -- and to high to take Winston Justice.

Other tidbits from Favre include:  (1) a denial that he's trying to get released so he can play for another team (you know, one with a chance of being worth a crap this year); (2) a denial that he's motivated by money or by a desire to break records (although the all-time interception mark is well within his grasp); (3) an acknowledgement that his confidence has been "shot a little bit" due to his performance in 2005 (ya think?); and (4) a willingness to participate in offseason minicamps (gee, how big of him).

As several readers have pointed out, the Favre interview reads more like a pitching machine set to "elderly nun league softball" than a hard-hitting exercise in journalism.  Indeed, Havel merely gives Lord Favre a chance to provide his own spin as to every issue for which Favre might have been privately or publicly criticized of late.

Amazingly, Havel fails to ask Favre about the recent comments of former Packers teammate Mark Chmura, who ripped Brett a new butthole during a Milwaukee radio broadcast.

The omission of the Chewy butt chewing isn't surprising.  Havel, after all, has co-authored two of Brett's books.  And, of course, Havel didn't actually disclose that fact in his article.  

Why would he?  If he had, then everyone would know that the "interview" was in reality a deftly crafted "press release."

MORE FRIDAY AFTERNOON ONE-LINERS

The NFL is looking to the Nextel Cup for tips on how to improve the pro football replay system.

Redskins C Casey Rabach had surgery to repair an "ugly open wound" resulting from an ATV accident.

As the Vikings embark on the first minicamp of the Brad Childress era, starting (for now) QB Brad Johnson says that the players are "on edge."

Ed Bouchette of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette says that the Chiefs will make their first trip to the Steel City in 18 years (actually, it's 17 years -- yours truly was there, and Steve DeBerg had the play-action thing working to perfection).

Redskins coach Joe Gibbs is griping about the schedule.

Is it a coincidence that Bus Cook represents the two guys involved in the most offseason drama this year?

Pats WR Deion Branch wants to stay with the team beyond the expiration of his rookie contract.

Patriots special teams coach Brad Seely is checking out a trio of college kickers. 

With the new NFL Network package on Thursdays and Saturdays, is the NFL in danger of overexposure?  (Hell, no.)

The NFL Network's news release touts the December 21, 2006 game between the Vikings and Packers at Lambeau as "Brett Favre's home finale."

NBC Sports chairman Dick Ebersol says it's "very, very important" to have a team in Los Angeles.

Seahawks DE Bryce Fisher didn't find many Seattle fans in his overseas visits to U.S. troops:  "You'd think half of western Pennsylvania is deployed over here," Fisher said. "They wave their Terrible Towels and needle me as much as possible."   

The Bills aren't ready for prime time.

Kyle Orton might not be a very good quarterback, but at least he's realistic:  "It's going to be tough for me to move up on the depth chart this year.  It probably won't happen."  (The good news is that his status as the No. 3 man on the Bears' totem pole will give Orton plenty of extra time to parrrr-teeee.)

Official NFL excuse du jour for bouncing local television coverage from the sidelines:  "We're being consistent with what every other sport does."

Here's a new rule that didn't get much attention last week -- visiting teams are now allowed to play with their own balls (makes sense to us, since it likely gets pretty lonely in those hotel rooms).

POSTED 12:51 p.m. EDT, April 7, 2006

SPANOS PLANNING TO DUMP SMITH, MARTY?

San Diego Chargers president/owner Dean Spanos announced on Thursday that he has big expectations for his team in 2006.

And if, as history tells us, big expectations aren't fulfilled, people get poop-canned.

According to Kevin Acee of the San Diego Union-Tribune, Spanos says that he will be "'very disappointed'" if the team does not get to the playoffs and "go deep therein."  In 2004, the Chargers shocked the NFL with a 12-4 record, but lost at home to the Jets in the wild-card round.  In 2005, the Chargers failed to qualify for the postseason.

Asked whether this means that coach Marty Schottenheimer can officially be placed on the hot seat, Spanos tried to tap-dance:  "There is equal pressure to win on everyone in this organization," he said.  "That goes for the head coach and the general manager and for me, too."

Reminded that only two of those guys don't own the team, Spanos acknowledged, "Yeah. I'm not going to fire myself."

Our interpretation?  Both Schottenheimer and G.M. A.J. Smith are in trouble.  Spanos surely isn't happy with the cat fight that broke out between the two of them earlier in the offseason, and Spanos easily could conclude, if the team falls apart in 2006, that the root of the problem is the inability of Schott and Smith to work and play well together.

And we wonder whether Spanos is intentionally raising the bar so that no one will be shocked if/when both men are fired.  After all, the Chargers are breaking in a new quarterback this year, who has spent his first two NFL seasons standing on the sidelines.  So if Spanos intentionally is asking for too much, the worst-case scenario is that A.J. and Marty will now get their Schottenheimer together and deliver a Super Bowl trophy, or something darn close to it.

Either way, the guy who can't be fired wins.

FRIDAY AFTERNOON ONE-LINERS

Malcolm in the Middle will launch his first NFL minicamp on Friday (and for the first session the players will taking turns beating the sh-t out of Reese).

Says RB Reggie Bush of his visit with the folks who run the show in Houston:  "They didn't really tell me anything directly, other than the fact that they're excited for this upcoming draft and excited for me to be a Texan." 

From the "When Did We Get So Freaking Old?" file, not having a single tattoo on your body is now a selling point for incoming NFL players.

Dan Rooney thinks that other teams are discriminating against Steeler Nation (maybe they'll get a casino or two in return).

DT Ed Jasper's contract with the Eagles is worth $710,000 and a $40,000 bonus.

The Bengals realize, for the first time in a long-time, that winning the division means you play all of the other division winners from the conference the next year.

POSTED 8:45 a.m. EDT, April 7, 2006

STEINBERG ISN'T WORRIED ABOUT LOSING LEINART

In a Thursday afternoon phone conversation, agent Leigh Steinberg responded to a recent Profootballtalk.com article that characterized Steinberg and agent Chuck Price as fearful that they will lose USC quarterback Matt Leinart to Creative Artists Agency and its new football agent, Tom Condon. 

Steinberg described the relationship with Leinart as "very strong."  Steinberg also offered a bold prediction regarding the long-term prospects of his representation of the 2004 Heisman trophy winner.  "It will go on for as long as my 23 years with Warren Moon," Steinberg said.

Because CAA is involved in portions of the non-football representation of Leinart, many league observers assumed that Leinart's rookie contract will be back in play now that Condon has joined the company.  On the other hand, Condon already has had a shot at securing Leinart when Condon was with IMG.  Our guess is that, when Leinart was in the process of selecting an agent in January 2006, Condon played up the potential link between IMG and CAA.

So if Leinart didn't choose Condon then, it makes sense to think that he won't change his mind now.

CONDON WASN'T HAPPY WITH HIS PIECE OF THE PIE

Speaking of Tom Condon and his former employer, IMG, a league source tells us that Condon left the sports mega-firm because Condon wasn't happy with the cut that he was receiving from the revenue that he brought to the table.

In fact, we'd previously heard that Condon played up his low total pay as a tool for persuading NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw (also a Condon client) to get the union leadership to abandon plans to reduce the maximum agent fees from three percent to two percent of contract value.

But if Condon wasn't happy with the amount of money that he had to kick upstairs, why would he jump into another firm in lieu of starting his own shop?  Some believe that Condon has acquired an ownership interest in CAA.  Even if he hasn't, our guess is that he cut himself a pretty good deal with CAA.  

Otherwise, why leave IMG?

STEINBERG HOPEFUL JUSTICE WILL COME AROUND

During our Thursday conversation with Leigh Steinberg, the long-time agent confirmed that he has received a termination notice from USC offensive tackle Winston Justice.  But Steinberg expressed optimism that, during the mandatory five-day period before Justice can sign with another agent, Steinberg will be able to highlight for Justice the value of the work that he has performed.

Steinberg explained that, under the guidance and training he has provided to Justice, the player has gone from a low-first/high-second prospect to a guy who could be taken as high as No. 8 in the April 29 draft.  "It's pretty ironic," Steinberg said, "to get terminated for vaulting a player to the top of the draft."

Steinberg also disputes the notion that Justice became unhappy because the agent has spent too much time with USC quarterback Matt Leinart.  "There are time when players have temporary issues," Steinberg said.  "I'm hopeful that this is just a hiccup in the relationship."

In our experience, however, the player doesn't submit the termination letter unless he's already got another agent lined up.  In this case, the initial report from KFFL.com indicated that Justice would hire Gary Uberstine.  We've also heard that other agents will also make a run at recruiting Justice.

And our guess is that Steinberg has a realistic chance to persuade Justice to stick around.  We base that on the fact that it would have been far better for Justice to make a change after the draft, since wavering on representation isn't viewed as a positive attribute by some NFL teams.  So common sense (to the extent we have any) suggests that, if Uberstine was indeed behind the termination notice, Uberstine was concerned that Justice might change his mind after he gets drafted in the top half of round one -- and after the media praises Justice (and, in turn, Steinberg) for getting him taken so high.  If that's the case, then Steinberg still has a shot to lay out for Justice, in very plain terms, the fact that it was Steinberg, not Uberstine or anyone else, who was in the driver's seat while Justice has motored up the board.