NOT SO FAST, DAVE. From Dave K. of Chicago: "With QB Aaron Rodgers to the Niners and RB Ronnie Brown to the Dolphins seemingly a forgone conclusion with the first two spots in the draft, does that make the third pick, by Cleveland, the hot spot in the draft? How many teams might appear desperate to trade over Chicago at No. 4 to get their back or receiver of choice?''

Not many. First of all, Dave, I am skeptical that Nick Saban, who does really like Ronnie Brown, will end up taking the Auburn running back. I think Saban thinks that's too high for a back in a draft rich with backs. I still think the Dolphins coach will mine the waters to try to find a trade partner. (Which, by the way, I think will not work, unless he makes Patrick Surtain or another trusty veteran part of the trade talks.) My guess is Cleveland is going to puzzle over this one and take the best available defensive player, unless Phil Savage and Romeo Crennel, the new brain trust, fall in love with the quarterback San Francisco and Miami do not take -- either Rodgers or Alex Smith.

MAILBAG Peter King will answer your questions each week in Monday Morning Quarterback: Tuesday Edition. Your name: Your e-mail address: Your home town: Enter your question:

REVENUE-SHARING IS AS OLD AS THE HILLS, VERN. From Vern Imrich of Reading, Mass.: "Regarding the owners and revenue-sharing, a far more glaring issue is the disparity of public funds going into some teams' stadiums. For example, why should New England share stadium income from its completely privately funded stadium, with say, the Colts, who are getting millions from Indiana for their facility?''

Vern, when revenue-sharing began a jillion years ago, there was a vast disparity between the Chicagos and the Green Bays in terms of market size, the same way as it is today. Every franchise is going to have a different deal as far as funding for stadiums, debt service and things like that. If you try to say, "New England shouldn't share X because Bob Kraft built Gillette Stadium,'' then how big of a competitive advantage will that lead to? I admire men like Kraft for putting up the money themselves, but it's wrong to hold back all stadium revenue from teams that build their own homes. Before long, you'll have a ridiculous gulf between the New Englands and the Green Bays.

HE FINDS FAULT WITH THE TEXAS OILMAN. From Robert Vallin of Slippery Rock, Pa.: "Jerry Jones is (as usual) wrong about the issue of sharing-stadium rights fees with teams that don't sell their naming right. If there is no Cincinnati, no Detroit, no Seattle, then he can keep all the money. But no one is going to care about a one-team league. He wouldn't get 10 cents let alone 10 million dollars except for the fact that there are 32 teams playing a fantastic game. That's why you share.''

In this case, I see his point, though. Cincinnati chooses to not sell the stadium name. Seattle sold the name to Qwest, a phone company. Dallas will get $10 million or so per year to sell the name for its stadium. I think it's up for a legitimate debate whether that $10 million should be shared with teams that don't attempt to sell the naming rights to their stadiums.