MMQB Mailbag (cont.)

Peter King's Mailbag Peter King will answer your questions each week in Monday Morning Quarterback: Tuesday Edition. Name: Email: Hometown: Question: SEND

What remains the biggest point of contention in the he-said, he-said debate over how Favre left is his feeling the Packers nudged him away. He has been consistent this offseason in his feeling that GM Ted Thompson wanted him to retire and did nothing to dissuade Favre from retiring after he had such a good season, at 38, in 2007.

I asked Thompson about that on Sunday, and he sounded bewildered. "I don't know where that comes from, ' he said. "[Coach] Mike [McCarthy] told him in March we both wanted him back, and we did. We were prepared to take him back.''

And so it goes.

***

Before I get to your e-mails, one final point: I got some good suggestions about new Monday Morning Quarterback column departments. I'm going to put it to a vote next Monday, but before I do, I'm keeping the polls open for a few more days. On your way home from work tonight, give this five minutes of thought: What do you want to read more of each week in the column, and what permanent parts of the column would you like to see me add?

***

• WHY TAMPA? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? From Christopher, of San Rafael, Calif.: "Peter, without beating the 'Favre ruining his legacy playing for another team for a year' thing to death, why would you think Tampa Bay is a contender? Would Favre go there? Is the Jeff Garcia holdout really gonna happen? Why does Jon Gruden feel he needs 147 QBs going into training camp? Shed some light for me.''

You answered your own question, Christopher. Gruden's a quarterback-collector, and I'm sure he sees that adding Favre for a year would be the equivalent of the Chiefs adding Joe Montana in 1993, with Montana leading Kansas City to a division title and Wild Card berth in his two seasons there. I've said this a few times since the Favre drama started playing out a couple of weeks ago: Gruden is probably the most ruthless, bottom-line man coaching in the NFL today. He'd have no problem pushing Garcia aside if he had Favre to replace him.

• PROBABLY THE WRONG TERM USED BY ME, JOSH. From Joshua Thomas, of Orlando: "Love your columns, but I have to ask: What is your justification for labeling the Bucs a 'non-threatening NFL franchise?' They won their division last year and could have easily won a couple more games if they hadn't rested many of their starters down the stretch. They have one of the leagues youngest and talented offensive lines and figure only to improve this year.''

I erred. I should have called the Bucs a more tolerable option for the Packers than Minnesota or Chicago. The Bucs are my leaders in the clubhouse for Favre's services if the Packers decide to deal or release Favre.

• ANOTHER COUNTRY HEARD FROM. From Bill Howard, of San Francisco: "I've been mulling over the Brett Favre 'unretirement' situation. This is what I would do. The Packers should take Favre back, but ask him for a minimum two-year commitment. In this scenario, they almost certainly lose Aaron Rodgers. But they cut their losses and begin training Brian Brohm, an awfully good draft choice, as Favre's successor. This way the franchise can say it got something in return for losing Rodgers, while preparing its QB of the future.

"My thinking is that, despite all the praise heaped on Rodgers, he is still a big unknown. The simple fact is Rodgers will be under such scrutiny, given Favre's desire to return, that no matter how he plays, he's likely to be criticized. Maybe, while Rodgers' stock is still high, Green Bay might be able to get something good in return.''

Not a bad idea. But Ted Thompson is a huge build-through-the-draft guy, and he used his first first-round pick on Aaron Rodgers, and now that he's seen Rodgers' seed germinate into something good, I think it's highly unlikely he'd let him go. That plus the fact that you can't order Favre, who has thought seriously about retiring three years in a row, to commit to playing until he's 40. How could you trust that he'd definitely play in 2009 after watching him go back and forth about playing for each of the past three offseasons?

• GOOD POINT, BUT IT'S NOT EXACTLY THE SAME THING. From Brian Kortepeter, of Indianapolis: "Peter, Jim Irsay thankfully allowed us Colts season-ticket holders to re-up at Lucas Oil Stadium with NO PSLs! I don't expect to ever see them here, at least not in the foreseeable future. He flat-out said at the time that our market wouldn't bear it. Ticket prices went up a bit, but only slightly. Take that, Jerry Jones.''

The Colts' new stadium costs far less than the $1-billion of the Cowboys' new place, and the Colts were helped by public funding too, because they knew the market would revolt at having to pay $5,000 just for the right to buy a 40-yard-line seat in the lower bowl. To my knowledge, the PSL issue was never a factor with the Colts.

• GREAT QUESTION, BILL. From Bill Beldham, of Cambridge, Ontario: "Why is there no developmental league for the NFL? With all the smaller (actually big suburban) markets, and the very good talent that can't make current rosters, I would think a D-league is a no-brainer. Personally, I would like to see a couple of those teams in Canada.

Bill, my feeling is that the Canadian Football League eventually will have as at least part of its mission the development of talent for the NFL. Will it be a Triple-A league for the NFL? I'm not sure it'll go that far, but I believe the NFL would be willing to subsidize a player-development program in the CFL eventually, particularly if NFL honchos like Kansas City president Carl Peterson continue to beat the drum for a developmental concept to replace the defunct NFL Europa.

• YOUR GUESS IS AS GOOD AS MINE. From Jim, of Boston: "Hi, Peter -- welcome back. I've heard so many takes on this, but I'm curious to hear yours: How close, seriously, is the NFL to putting a team in L.A.? Which team will it be?''

Not close at all, and there currently is no impetus for a franchise to move there. My guess is it won't happen for at least five years, and when it does, the best candidates are San Diego (totally stalled on getting a new stadium built), Buffalo (which will be in play at some point, but probably will split games between Buffalo and Toronto), St. Louis (the Rams CAN go home again) and Jacksonville (not the market the NFL envisioned 15 years ago).

The problem now is the state just isn't going to pour aid into a new stadium or refurbish the Coliseum, and some football benefactor is going to have come up with $1 billion to even get a stadium project mostly done. And we haven't even talked about the cost of a franchise yet. If you know anyone with a spare $2 billion, that's a good place to start when you're thinking about who could be the godfather of a new team in Los Angeles.