ProFootballTalk.com -- The Best Pro Football Scoop on the Internet

Ed Werder of ESPN reports that the NFL Players Association will file a grievance regarding the decision of the Tennessee Titans to bar quarterback Steve McNair from offseason workouts. Per Werder, the purpose of the move is to get the Titans to either permit him to join his teammates for offseason drills -- or cut him.

Though we don't have any more details on Werder's report (since the folks at ESPN.com apparently ignore any news broken by employees of the television side who don't also write for the web site), we can take it from here, based on what we know about the CBA. As we explained on the day the news of McNair's ouster broke, the team has no right under the CBA to lock him out of offseason drills, even if the purpose is to ensure that he doesn't get injured and, in turn, become entitled to the full amount of his 2006 salary. So the remedy is to file a non-injury grievance, with a request that the team be forced to decide whether to let him in or set him free.

And since few eleven-year veterans genuinely want to lift weights and ride a stationary bike in April, it's safe to assume that the primary if not exclusive purpose for the grievance is to secure McNair's freedom.

If/when McNair is cut, it's virtually certain that he'll land in Baltimore. We continue to hear from various sources that the talk of McNair to the Ravens is a done deal.

The more we think about it, the less comfortable we are with the failure of the media to ask Brett Favre a single question about the recent comments of former teammate Mark Chmura on Saturday.

At the outset of Saturday morning's tease of a press conference, which we viewed via one of the Green Bay television station's web sites, a woman's voice could be heard instructing the assembled media not to ask Favre any questions about Chmura and that, if any questions about Chmura are asked, they won't be answered.

Hello? Are there any, you know, journalists out there? Someone should have asked him the damn question and forced him not to answer it.

Heck, we think Favre might have answered it notwithstanding the direction not to ask it, given his recent penchant to indulge himself in the sound of his own voice.

Even if Favre wouldn't have answered a question about Chmura, since when does the person who calls a press conference get to tell the journalists who were duped into covering it not to ask certain questions?

And since when does any self-respecting journalist comply with such a bullcrap directive?

While Packers quarterback Brett Favre continues to toy with the media and the fans regarding the question of whether he'll return for the 2006 season, the talk in NFL circles is that the Packers gave the league office firm assurances that Favre will be back before the regular season schedule was finalized.

The Packers are slated for three prime time games, playing twice on ESPN's new, $64.5 million-per-week Monday night package. Green Bay's home finale will be aired on the NFL Network on Thursday, December 21.

We're also hearing that Packers players are privately joking about that ongoing hubbub regarding Favre's status in light of the clear message that the schedule sends. We've even heard that Favre himself has remarked that the television schedule should make it clear that he'll be back.

So why, then, does Favre continue to drag out the process? Because, as we continue to hear, he loves the attention -- and because he doesn't like G.M. Ted Thompson.

His teammates, we're told, know that he enjoys the attention, and they don't fault him for it. They love the guy and are keeping quiet as to his intentions so that he can announce his plans when he's ready to do so. They also believe, we're told, that Favre's comments regarding the quality of the roster (specifically the offensive line) aren't aimed at them, but are part of the assault on Thompson.

Still, the whole thing is getting bizarre. We're already sensing the beginnings of a backlash for the psych job that the Favre family spokeswoman pulled on the media by indicating that Favre would make an announcement regarding his plans during a Saturday morning press conference, only to have Brett say nothing of consequence.

And if Favre is merely playing a game with Thompson, Favre needs to ask himself whether getting his jollies by twisting Ted's tail is worth the goodwill that he's pissing away by appearing wishy-washy at best, weird at worst.

If Favre isn't just playing games with Thompson, then Favre has lied to a lot of people. Because it continues to be common knowledge within the organization that Favre has said he'll be back.

We haven't gotten into a good spat with a member of the "real" media for more than a year now.

But like a company boasting 453 days without a lost-time accident, some guy's sack just got caught in the shredder.

On Friday, we sent an e-mail to Chris Havel of the Green Bay Press-Gazette regarding Havel's failure to disclose at the bottom of his interview of Lord Favre the fact that Havel has written two books with the Packers quarterback. We thought it was a legitimate question. After all, Havel supposedly is a journalist, and journalists are supposed to be objective and unbiased. When there is a circumstance that could render the reporting biased, the journalist is supposed to disclose it to the reader.

We didn't learn this at journalism school (or "J school," as the trained media types call it), because we didn't go to journalism school. But even without the sheepskin that says we've been trained to write down the things that other people say, common sense tells us that any relationship that might compromise the reporter's objectivity should be disclosed, even if the reporter subjectively believes that he's capable of remaining fair and balanced.

Thanks for the email. As to your question, why would I put that in an article? I didn't get the interview with Favre because I've written two books with him. I got it just like you get your interviews or sources or whatever for your website. Through alliances, contacts and hard work.

Well, we didn't really like that answer -- and not just because we were hoping to piss the guy off (but that was part of plan). Instead, we thought he had avoided the real question. Namely, whether his pre-existing relationship with Favre should have been acknowledged as part of a supposedly neutral and unbiased interview. So we answered his question as to why we think he should make the disclosure as follows:

do you really not see the need to disclose that fact? i didn't understand your failure to ask him about chmura until i realized that you were tight with him.

---------------------------------------------

Havel's reply:

---------------------------------------------

I didn't make money off Brett Favre. I made money off Doubleday, the publisher, who signed the check. I did ask him about Mark Chmura's comments and he replied, "He's entitled to his opinion."

I have to laugh that you know nothing about me, have never met me and obviously are naive to the world of pro sports and writing books, or at least I get that impression based on your emails, but you still have the audacity to tell me that I lack objectivity. Who are you to say? Would you say it to my face? I doubt it, but I'd love to give you the chance some time.

Your website, in my opinion, is a joke. So was your appearance on the morning radio show in Green Bay. You throw out all sorts of garbage, and it's all tied to "unnamed sources," but you don't ever back it up. You point out the times you were right. Big deal. You fail to mention all the times you were wrong. Throw enough garbage out there and eventually you're going to be right about something, or at least I would hope so.

If you ever get to Green Bay, or if you ever do any real reporting that requires attaching a named source, look me up. Otherwise don't waste my time.

Oh yeah. That's what I'm talkin' 'bout. Hostility. Implied threats. Specious reasoning.

By the way, when Favre retires, are you going to print a retraction on your panty-waste website? Or are you going to say, "You read it here first."

Obviously, the Press-Gazette has no problems with my objectivity, so who are you to say anything?

Oh, speaking of 11 years old, why don't you learn how to spell. Or write, for that matter.

Don't bother to email me, because I won't waste the time to read them. But if you're ever in Green Bay, and actually go to an NFL town to do some real reporting, look me up. Then we'll see just how much of a wise-ass you really are, but I'm pretty sure you're just a coward, based upon your so-called "work."

So maybe we will make the trek to Cheeseland and "say it to his face." Of course, he might scratch us with his Lee press-on nails. And that collar looks kinda pointy. He might put our eye out.

We've previously reported, on numerous occasions, that Favre has told the team he will be returning for 2006. We've also heard, on numerous occasions, that Favre has been coy about announcing his plans primarily because of a dislike for Packers G.M. Ted Thompson.

At the outset of the press conference, reporters were told not to ask any questions about former Packers tight end Mark Chmura, who recently called Favre "selfish" for turning the issue into a protracted soap opera.

But Chmura might have been on to something, given that there were very strong hints coming from the Favre camp that his announcement would be made on Saturday morning.

Really, what's the point of having a press conference to say that the status quo will be maintained? Unless, of course, Favre was looking for a way to generate national coverage for a media session regarding his charity golf tournament, which otherwise would have been largely unnoticed.

As to the Packers, Favre continued to harp on the need for the team to improve itself. He mentioned the signing of Reggie White in 1993, and he said that the players knew that the team instantly has gotten better. Favre said the team needs to do something like that in 2006.

But there's no Reggie White available in free agency. The only impact players left are LaVar Arrington, Charles Woodson, and Ty Law, but they all want more money than they are worth.

And now that Favre has implored the team to make a big splash, their price tags likely have gone up.

The Saturday morning press conference at which Packers quarterback Brett Favre is expected to announce his plans for 2006 has been postponed (drum roll, please) from 8:30 a.m. EDT to 9:00 a.m. EDT.

Though the Texans are likely sniffing around QB Vince Young primarily as a courtesy to the Houston native, there's a chance that they might end up getting a whiff of something that they really like.

The Minnesota coaching staff expects the six linebackers on the roster to learn all three positions (for recent Vikings teams, those three linebacking positions were: (1) on their backs; (2) on their stomachs; and (3) tailing the ball carrier by at least five yards).

From the "Maybe I Can Work For My Wife After I Get Cut" file, Vikings WR Marcus Robinson has been absent from the team's offseason conditioning program because his wife decided to open a hair salon, and Marcus is taking care of the kids.

New Vikings G Steve Hutchinson finagled jersey No. 76 from long-time Vikings Chris Liewinski, who'll now wear No. 67.

Vikings CB Fred Smoot has switched from No. 27 to No. 21 (which also is the number of months he faces behind bars for his sex boat see-saw routine).

The Bucs have added OT Torrin Tucker, after the Cowboys failed to match the offer sheet that restricted free agent signed with the Bucs.

Chiefs QB Trent Green isn't worried that the team is looking for a backup who eventually could leapfrog him.

QB Craig Nall is "[v]ery confident" that he'll be the starting quarterback in Buffalo.

Akron WR Domenik Hixon, who was not invited to the scouting combine, is now on the draft board after running the 40 between 4.36 and 4.39 seconds.

Colts QB Peyton Manning chimes in on the Titans' decision to bar Steve McNair from offseason workouts: "I didn't like to hear the way that went about."

We reluctantly (not really) interrupt the current love-fest unfolding between Louisiana and the Saints to remind the citizens of New Orleans that your NFL team remains a prime candidate to move to Los Angeles.

As we've said several times over the past couple of weeks, someone is moving to L.A. Whether it's the Saints, Bills, Jags, Vikings, or Chargers, an NFL franchise will be in L.A., likely by the end of the decade.

If it's the Saints, owner Tom Benson would sell the franchise to a new owner in California, walking away with a cool billion or more.

And we've heard chatter that a move could come as soon as 2007, possibly in conjunction with a Cleveland-style commitment from the Commish that New Orleans would have dibs on an expansion team -- once the area is fully rebuilt to the point that it can support a franchise, and if the NFL ever chooses to disrupt its current 32-team format.

Another possibility would be the future movement of a team like the Bills or the Jaguars to the Bayou.

Regardless of what happens, the possibility of a sale come 2007 likely is influencing the Saints' approach to the 2006 draft, in which the franchise holds the No. 2 overall pick. After the Saints signed quarterback Drew Brees, there were reports that the franchise intended to trade down. The Saints have been a bit more coy of late, but we continue to hear that the Saints desperately want out of the two hole, since Benson doesn't want to pay out the enormous bonus money that goes along with such a high position in the draft.

There's a growing belief that the Saints hope to land defensive end Mario Williams, but not with the No. 2 pick. If, in the end, the Saints can't move out of that spot, there's a chance that they'll end up taking quarterback Matt Leinart, which only would enhance the value of the franchise in advance of the potential move to Los Angeles.

Remember this -- Brees has a $12 million option bonus due in 2007. We initially presumed that the eight-figure payment was intended to protect the Saints in the event that Brees' shoulder is shot. But it also could be that Benson wants to be able to walk away from making a bigger financial commitment to Brees, in the event that Benson knows before March 2007 that he'll be cashing out.

Our guess is that, in the end, the Saints will find a way to trade down. If they don't, don't be surprised to hear Leinart's name called out at No.2, regardless of who gets drafted at No. 1.

Clements is not under contract. He has received the one-year franchise tender, but he has not signed it. He has no obligation to sign it, and thus has no obligation to be at a minicamp -- especially one that isn't mandatory.

The Bills are carrying $7.2 million in cap space under the franchise tender. Since Clements hasn't signed his name on the dotted line, the Bills can revoke the tender at any time, making Clements an unrestricted free agent. If he signs the tender, the $7.2 million becomes fully guaranteed.

Although the two sides reportedly continue to negotiate a long-term deal, the Bills would lose their franchise designation for 2007 if they sign Clements to multi-year contract before July 15. Under the old CBA, the Bills would have forfeited the franchise tag for the duration of Clements' new contract.

Quick Team Pages