1. An afterthought, maybe. Am I the only one who wonders why there isn't a rookie cap in the NFL? Sure, JLong will probably be good. But I thought Robert Gallery would be crushing DL's too.

2. Unbelievable to hear the talking heads prattle about a ceiling on Chris Long. Short of blazing speed, the guy is a phenom. He's got burst, power and jumps out the room. Sure he got handled by OLiners who had 60-75 lbs. on him, but name one player this side of the real LT who didn't have that problem. Long will be an excellent NFL player and a worthwhile choice at #2.

3. Not just the start of a new era in ATL, but the end of another. Matt Ryan will return respectability to the QB spot for the Falcons. And the fact that they'll have a QB at QB won't hurt either. Don't let the Ryan pick exclude the possibility of Art Blank letting Mike Vick return to ATL, but thankfully it will be at Vick's natural position.

4. Hard to pick apart the Raiders choice of McFadden. Sure they could have used a trench player, but they can use someone at every position. When you suck as much as the Raiders, a good player is a good pick.

8. The Jags purged their DL and then may have reached desperately at #8. Good to see a defensive powerhouse dump a few highly paid, proven performers to overpay one, undersized unproven player in Harvey. Is Jax thinking he's the second coming of Dwight Freeny?

13. Johnathan Stewart will fit in Carolina, and he's a quality choice. But with Brian Brohm, Joe Flacco and Chad Henne on the board, and Jake Delhomme coming off Tommy John Surgery . . .??? Not sure who the Panthers are considering as an insurance policy, may JD Booty or Colt Brennan, but both lack starter size and ability.

18. Speaking of Flacco, I don't love the guy because he went to my alma mater, I just love that arm. Throws the ball like it's on a string, with awesome velocity and accuracy, yet has great touch downfield. Maybe the best physical specimen at QB in the last ten years. The knock on him is his footwork. Well you can teach footwork. You can't teach arm.

21. I like the Matt Ryan pick. Not sure about Baker at 21. The guy is not equipped to be an NFL Tackle. Maybe the Falcons are thinking they have the next Alan Faneca. The bad news is, Faneca thought he was a lot better than the film showed recently and he was getting worked pretty good for the last three years. Still if Baker pans out at guard, assuming the Birds put him there, it might be a good marriage at least for the first two contracts.

23. Mel Kiper, in his infinite wisdom, called this a "luxury pick" for Pittsburgh. The Steelers started 9-3 and finished 1-3. Where's the luxury for a team that collapsed down the Stretch? The Steelers aren't deep anywhere and their best RB broke his leg last year. They took the best player available, by far. Any player to take the heat of Big Sack Taker is a great pick.

26. Another player termed a reach? Depends on what reaching is. I don't think taking a good player (like Duane Brown) who fits what you do, a little early is a reach. I think taking an overrated player at any position is a reach.

Regardless of where one sits on the relevance of the Brett Favre career calculations, his long overdue departure set in motion a series of noteworthy discussions. Among them:

1. Is Favre the best QB ever?

2. Is Favre one of the best QB's ever?

3. Is Favre the best Packer QB ever?

4. Was this year the "right" year for #4 to retire?

They're all great questions, but it merits mention that one must first define "greatness" before even entering the discussion.

1&2.

If you love stats, there's no question Favre is one of the best ever. He stands atop a class including Moon, Marino, Fouts, Kelly and a handful of others who piled up great regular season records/stats in a game more defensively hamstrung with every passing year.

It's kind of ironic for me though, that Favre reminds me of my favorite and the original GOB, Gunslinger QB, Terry Bradshaw though. Actually, it just makes me wonder how Bradshaw would have performed under the same rule set.

But if one cares about winning, the real winning, Brett Favre has more in common with Trent Dilfer than Joe Montana. That's why it's hard for me to even consider him an elite, top ten performer. The rush by the media to anoint Favre as the King of QB's is about as undeserved as as awarding the Nobel Prize in Physics for the Clapper.

Favre Won a SB. He lost a SB.

Terry Bradshaw won four, didn't lose one.

Joe Montana won four, didn't lose one.

Troy Aikman won 3 didn't lose one.

Bart Starr won two, didn't lose one. (and 3 NFL Championships).

Bradshaw even went on record as saying his greatest accomplishment was that her never lost a SB.

But doubtlessly, there are some greats that have lost a championship. The one that most comes to mind is the phenomenal Otto Graham. 10 Championship game appearances in ten years, and seven championships.

No one even mentions Otto Graham. Even though he played in a era where defenders abused receivers and QB's like they were inmates at Alcatraz, and Graham was the poster boy for developing the face mask after a blow to the jaw left him with 15 stitches.

Ten years, 7 Championships, 86.6 passer rating, 105-17-4 record and 88 TD's.

Now tell me that Favre compares to that? Or even try to extrapolate what Graham would have done under the NFL-lite PI, IC and Roughing rules in place today.

When you consider what Graham did, it's hard to imagine that any of the talking heads have even as much of a clue about NFL history. Or even recent history.

Don't even get me started about Johnny U.

Bradshaw is on TV every Sunday. He won 4 SB's in six years. Montana is hardly an afterthought, with the highest QB rating ever in the post season, over 100. Aikman, yeah he shows up every so often.

And what About 3-1 Tom Brady?

So until we have a stats bowl to decide the best of the best every season, Favre is a very good, but not elite QB.

The sad fact is though, we'll never be able to compare these guys side by side. So the question borders on moot.

3. Bart Starr won 5 Championships. Favre won one. So this question is a joke too.

4. No. He didn't pick the right year, he should have retired four or five years ago after that six-pick with a pick-six, meltdown in the post season. The sad fact is, ever since Favre lost his babysitters, Mariucci, Gruden and Holmgren, he's been a pressure point disaster. He's the guy you can count on to make the worst possible play when it's all on the line. Once Holmgren left, and he had left before the Packers even blew that SB to the Ponies, Favre was cursed by his own hoopla. I honestly think he started buying into the hype.

Heck, Bradshaw had Noll, Montana had Walsh, Starr had Lombardi and Graham had Brown, who did Favre end up with? Yes, the Legendary Mike Sherman. What did we expect?

Don't get me wrong kids, I had to love Favre, if only for the literally challenged mis-pronunciation of Farvruh. But include him in the elite, much less anoint him the best? Come on.

All the hoopla tells me is how sorry the state of QB'ing has become since coaches took the game from the QB's hands and the NFL rule softeners made even the Kordell Stewart experience an option.

Favre was clearly an exceptional and durable athlete, and definitely an exceptional talent. But his career numbers, however inflated, do the talking. 17 years, one trophy.

Steve Young is looking awfully good right now.

It's true, if I (instead of Jason Whitlock) had cited black on black crime as evidence of the new KKK, I'd be labeled a racist and probably locked out of the site (again).

It's true, if I had reached down deep and called out blacks for being the primary perpretrators of crimes against blacks, I'd be labeled a racist and probably locked out of the site (again).

It's true (even though Whitlock is black) that the instant he chose to stand on an issue and call out blacks for being the most likely to kill other blacks, he invited a firestorm of controversy.

Yes, double standards are alive and well in America. And there not just for white folks either.

Here's what I have to say about what Whitlock had to say:

Thank God.

I didn't like his choice of metaphors, but I understand the use of a literary device as well as anyone. Whitlock pushed your buttons skillfully.

I despise the subject matter, and the ugly reality of Sean Taylor's short life. I knew about Taylor's not so perfect past and regardless of his poor choices, had to root for him. The guy was a phenom. He didn't always behave the way I wish he would have behaved, but Taylor could have played in any era, under any rule set, and been a superstar. He was that good. He played the game the way it's supposed to be played. Somehow, I felt that understanding and respect for the game would keep him safe.

I prayed for his life. I cried at his passing. I thought about the unfairness of how I cried for him and not all the other 24 year-old black men that perish in senseless violence. I'm ashamed of that.

I lost my best friend when he was 22, after he was killed in a head-on collision. I carried him to his grave.

These deaths are a death of hope.

And Jason Whitlock dared to speak about the senselessness, the ugliness, the sickness, and the tragedy. He dared to blame the guilty and call the truth by its right name.

Thank God.

He chose to stand for something, to care enough to tell people what they need to hear instead of what they want to hear.

He chose to be a writer, instead of a journalist.

Here's the news, kids. You don't have to agree with him (I rarely do), you don't have to like his style or the content about which he chooses to opine.

But you should give him your respect. He displayed the character and courage that so many "journalists' have chosen to forgo in favor of a regular paycheck.

He stood on a wall. He called for positive change and he knows that you have be fearless in order to shepherd that change. He put the truth ahead of his popularity.

In essence, Whitlock went on record as being against people killing people, black on black crime is part of that problem. I have no issue with his position.

I choose to praise him. I give him my highest praise. I call him a writer.

You may choose not to praise him. But I think you should respect him. The list of folks who tell us what we need to hear is getting shorter every day.

In what might be one of the most idiotic presentations in sports "journalism" ever, ESPN presented a "town meeting" to discuss the race issue related to Ron Mexico's guilty plea.

Despite the unbelievable cheers and catcalls from the overwhelmingly black audience, I listened in. You're going to have to pardon me for asking these questions.

But did Vick plead gulity because he was black? Did he bankroll the gambling ring because he was black? Did he electrocute and drown dogs because he was black?

Terence Mathis talked about what Vick had done for the city. Mike Vick was their guy. He spoke of how much pride that Vick had brought to their city, but then forgot to mention how Vick had shamed and disgraced his city and the NFL by murdering defenselelss animals. He mentioned how Mike Vick put Atlanta football back on the map, but forgot to mention Vick flipping off those fans twice in his home satdium.

I heard questions about why other NFL players had done much worse and avoided punishment? Who for instance? Rae Carruth? Nate Newton? Bam Morris? Jamal Lewis?

I heard compliants about media overkill, and how Mike Vick has been put through so much. Yet the crowd jeered when an animal rights activist remided them that the victims were dead and buried, killed in fights, electrocuted &/or drowned,not making plea deals.

I saw ESPN cut short Joy Behar's retort to Whoopi Goldberg when Goldberg pulled the "cultural/southern" excuse on "The View". Behar asked her in what part of the country drowning or electrocuting dogs was part of the culture. Whoopi had no answer, but ESPN didn't bother to show that.

All in all I saw, the most racially biased and polarizing events on TV since the civil rights marches/riots on 50 years ago. ESPN worked hard to enrage an overwhelmingly white viewing audience. What a disgrace.

Meanwhile, Deuce McAllister's blocking back, a white guy, breaks down and cries over McAllister's injury, telling a reporter what a great man Deuce is and how "he plays the game for guys like him".

That statement got a few lines in a small article. Why, because it proves that race isn't an issue in an 80% black league. But it doesn;t draw ratings.

Just for the record. Mike Vick ran a dogfighting operation and murdered animals. He plead guilty because he was guilty. It's time to stop buying into the excuses and call a felon a felon. Not black felon, not a white felon, just a felon.

With no Rush Limbaugh lurking in the literary shadows, Dumbavan McChoke has taken the racist burden upon himself and decried that some people don't want blacks to be NFL QB's. So they have to do "a little extra".

Aside from the fact that I'm eagerly awaiting the NAAWP to come out demanding that the Eagles cut McNabb for his racist remarks, these remarks are disturbing for many reasons.

I suppose that Fathead 5 is under the impression that the viewing public is as stupid as he says they think black QB's are. Otherwise he'd know that the savvy fan sees McChoke's rhetoric as the typical blame laying and excuse making we would expect any bitter, overpaid, underproducing veteran QB whose head is on the block.

Anyone who saw McNabb burn down the franchise in 3 NFCC losses, and then physically gag his team out of  SB XXXIX, knows that the McNabb problem is not a skin color issue. It's a cardio-intestinal issue. McNabb simply doesn't have the heart or the guts to finish when it matters most.

So he senses that Eagles fans are gonna start screaming for whitey QB. He's perfectly entitled to lie to himself and say that it's not because he can't win the big one, nor can he even stay healthy anymore. But having lived in Philadelphia for many years of the McNabb era,  I know that had McChoke delivered even one Lombardi they'd rename cheese steaks "McNabb's" and nominate him for Sainthood.

And while we're on the topic, what exactly is the "Little Extra" black QB's have to do to achieve recognition? Is it choking in 3 NFCC games, or puking away a SB? Is it being a barely above average QB who is really an above average RB, like the ex-Falcon turned felon? Because there's no absence of media celebration for those two. Is it being a playoff and SB failure like Steve McNair? Because you can't hear McNair's name mentioned without the obligitory "warrior" reference in the same breath.

The sad truth is, McNabb's salvo is ugly in two hideous ways. One, because it showcases the bitterness of a fading star on the downside. Two, because it's the kind of rhetoric that not only incites racism, but propogates the very venom of which McNabb claims that QB's are victims.

The scorching irony is that McNabb has taken the very tack for which he and the NAACP unjustly accused Limbaugh. A few years back, it was Limbaugh who dared to say that the media "over-celebrates" black QB's, and used McNabb as an example of a black QB who gets a lot of press and simply isn't as good as he's made out to be. It cost Rush the job. So McNabb, as he fades into the NFL dust, decides to champion the poor, beleagured, multi-millionaire, overpaid, under-producing black QB's, who aren't getting the press they deserve. Well, the comments won't cost McNabb his job. His performance will.

Irony can be very irony-y, huh folks? Maybe McNabb thinks we don't know better, but we do. He's a loser, and just like a loser would do, he's chosen racism (or whatever other excuse is handy) over  truth.