You might want to read past the headline of that ESPN story. Read more

You know, it hit me after I published this that the Vikings could be in play here, too. They certainly have some huge decisions to make with Case Keenum, Teddy Bridgewater, and Sam Bradford all due to become unrestricted free agents. A lot depends on who they first choose as their offensive coordinator. Read more

This is fair. In all seriousness. Read more

I think that would depend on whether he can pass a physical by March 14, but you’re probably right. Read more

Pretty much, yeah. If they were to tender him and he were to sign it, he’s theirs until a trade is completed. Read more

Yep. It’s unlikely to happen, but that’s one scenario in which it might. Read more

One other thing: Washington could franchise Cousins if it knew it had a potential deal in place with a trading partner before the March 6 tag deadline, which is more than a week before free agency begins.  Read more

Haven’t been there in a while, but the Blue Comet in the Philly suburb of Glenside, Pa., used to have a single, small television high above one end of the bar. It was never turned on and it was covered by a sign that read, “Talk to the person next to you.” I miss the Blue Comet. Read more

An earlier version of this post incorrectly stated that Washington was the only team whose regulars did not cross the picket line. Al Saunders, the head coach at the time of the San Diego Chargers, has since reached out via email to inform me the Chargers remained united, too (in addition to going 3-0 during the… Read more

Those highlights from that MNF game are in one of the clips in the post above. Read more

You’re correct. Post has been updated. Thank you. Read more

That’s part of the risk in this, yes. I never denied that. But by enhancing his trade value, there’s a pretty good chance they’d have moved Garoppolo after tagging him, just as they did with Cassel. Banner made that very clear. Read more

I neglected to mention this, but the Pats did exactly what Banner is suggesting here in 2009, when they tagged Matt Cassel. That move tied 25 percent of their cap obligations to two QBs—same as this move would have done. Read more

Because the 49ers likely would have been picking in the Top 10 had they not traded for Garoppolo in October. And by tagging him the Pats would have signaled to other teams that they valued him that much. Read more

No. He’s saying you can keep Garoppolo by hedging against Brady getting seriously injured or declining, at which point you’d have your guy. You can’t divorce that comment from the rest of that paragraph. Read more

Garoppolo’s trade value would have gone up because other teams would have seen how much the Pats valued him by paying $23M to keep him as a backup. And a high first-round pick like the Browns offered would be a better return than the high second-rounder the Pats got. Read more

Of the guys you mentioned, only Butler, Amendola, and Solder might stand to command huge money in free agency. And had the Pats gotten the return they might have hoped for by tagging Garoppolo, they’d probably get a Top 10 pick to draft a corner or a left tackle. That’s part of the cost-benefit analysis Banner… Read more

Sure it does, if you were trying to maximize Garoppolo’s trade value. And if you can’t move him early in the offseason, you have him as insurance in case Brady gets hurt/finally grows old in 2018, at which point Garoppolo can be your guy. But if Brady’s still firing next season, then maybe you revisit trade… Read more

This isn’t about keeping him long-term. It’s for one more year. Read more

Yeah, no kidding. I was referring to post-1992. Changed that sentence for clarity. Thanks. Read more