Thoughts on Barber, Herm Edwards and Matt Leinart

	Giants running back Tiki Barber has been a source of controversy in New York since he criticized his coach after Sunday's loss to the Panthers. AP
	RELATED • KING:  Will the Chargers trade QB Rivers? • KING: The most disturbing trend in the NFL

Lots of debate on the Herm Edwards-to-Kansas City stuff, but before I get to that, my thoughts on Tiki Barber's "We got outcoached'' comment. 

It was a bad decision to make that statement. Just as you don't impugn your quarterback for a lousy game (and Eli Manning was a lot worse on Sunday than Tom Coughlin), you don't rip your coaching staff, even if you think it did a bad job. Hey, I love to see people speaking the truth, and if Barber believes what he said, good for us. Great story. But I also think it's something you don't do as a team guy.

On with the e-mail.

HERM SHOULD STILL BE THE COACH OF THE JETS. From Michael Graham of Spring City, Pa.: "The question regarding Herm Edwards to the Chiefs is: 'Why didn't the Jets just say no?' By entering into negotiations, they basically said we want a new coach. The Chiefs and Edwards had no leverage without getting it from the Jets. P.S.: Keep the updates coming from the military in Iraq and let them know we're thinking about them.''

Will do, Michael. And good point about the Jets. You forgot one thing: In this idiotic era of NFL coaching trades, if you determine you're going to get rid of your coach, you've got to get more than a fourth-round pick for one who hasled your team to the playoffs three times.

I CAN SAY IT WAS UNINTENTIONAL BECAUSE IT WAS UNINTENTIONAL. From Imre Berty of Branford Conn.: "How can you claim that the hit on Carson Palmer was unintentional? Kimo von Oelhoffen grabbed Palmer's leg and put his shoulder into it after it was clear Palmer had gotten rid of the ball.''

Respectfully, Imre, I can say this: You weren't watching the same replay that I watched. And Palmer and Marvin Lewis absolved von Oelhoffen. There's no way the guy tried to hurt Palmer on purpose. No way.

BEN THINKS I'M OFF-BASE. From Ben Singer of New York: "Your article about Herm Edwards is interesting but misses the point. The fact that coaches (and players) are increasingly either breaking or subtlety undermining their contracts is not the whole picture. It is part of a larger epidemic that includes management firing coaches after just two lousy seasons or going after players' signing bonuses for off-field indiscretions. Just ask Kellen Winslow or Ricky Williams.

This behavior is not unique to football. It is part of a larger marketplace ruthlessness that is evident in other businesses. Read the paper and see that decades-old 'promises' regarding pensions are being broken, turnover at large corporations is at record highs, and chief executive officers are commanding exorbitant sums to quit their jobs. Loyalty to one's job, one's employer and one's employees is less valued than a ruthless, individualistic and innately capitalistic pursuit of results at all costs. Herm Edwards should be credited for realizing that this is the way the system works and for escaping the Meadowlands before he got canned for another 4-12 season.''

When Herman Edwards signed his contract, he was guaranteed to be paid through the end of the 2007 season, whether he was coach of the Jets or not. Just like Steve Mariucci, who will make $8 million over the next two years to not coach the Lions. When management hires a coach, it ensures that coach will be paid 'til the end of his contract. What possibly is unjust about that? As I said in my piece, what the league is setting up now is every coach being on the open market every offseason now that they're allowed to be traded willy-nilly for draft choices. I've already heard, or read, speculation on Jeff Fisher, Marty Schottenheimer and Mike Holmgren turning up elsewhere next season in exchange for draft picks. Not that those reports are anything but rumor, but why? Why should coaches with time left on guaranteed contracts to be traded?