MMQB Mail: L.T. talks motivation and takes on Favre, Taylor, more

Related Links Play SI.com fantasy football on Facebook Peter King's Mailbag Peter King will answer your questions each week in Monday Morning Quarterback: Tuesday Edition. Name: Email: Hometown: Question: SEND Follow Peter King on Twitter

I can't say I know LaDainian Tomlinson very well. We've spoken eight or 10 times over the years, and I've always found him forthcoming, passionate about being good, and as honest as an athlete can be in this media age. I always like players who so badly want to be good. Tomlinson's one of those players.

We talked the other day -- he was in New York promoting the FoxSports.com fantasy football site and we interviewed him at Sirius NFL Radio -- and I asked him the question so many people have wondered about over the past seventh months, since L.T. took himself out of the AFC Championship Game against New England. Any regrets?

"I wouldn't have done anything differently,'' he said. "I had to try to play. But once I knew I wasn't going to be able to play at the level I should have, I came out. I knew a 100-percent Michael Turner was way better than I could give them at the time with my bum knee.''

Off the air, I asked him about not knowing before the game that the knee was so bad. Normally, players go and work out before a game, testing an injured limb so they'll know if it'll hold up during the game. Tomlinson probably should have tried to cut and pivot hard on the bad leg a few times before the game. But he didn't know how bad it was until he tried to cut on a pass play on that first series. "I couldn't cut back,'' he told me. "The knee just was loose. It wasn't right.'' And that's when he decided to let Turner, his backup, play.

That's the essence of the argument we all got so passionate about in January, when Tomlinson played the first series of the AFC title game in Foxboro, then was glued to the bench for the final 58 minutes -- at the same time quarterback Philip Rivers was playing the game with a knee that needed postseason surgery. Tomlinson's knee needed extensive postseason rehab, but no surgery. So his toughness was questioned from La Jolla to Bar Harbor.

"It's made me more determined than ever,'' Tomlinson told my co-host, Randy Cross. "I'm motivated more than I ever have been before. This is what I needed. You know, with the 31-touchdown season, and the success I've had, I started feeling it was a little easy.''

Tomlinson told us he's been working more on catching the ball out of the backfield this offseason -- attention fantasy players -- and also has had no setbacks in coming back from his knee sprain. That's music to the ears of Charger fans, and to fantasy players who might have thought the knee issue would haunt Tomlinson this year. It doesn't look like it.

Now for your emails:

• SIMPLE. BUFFALO IS NOT A 2008 SUPER BOWL CONTENDER. From Scott, of Buffalo: "Just curious, why do you think Brett Favre would veto a trade to Buffalo? The Bills have a solid line, a solid receiver in Lee Evans, a mountain of a rookie receiver to toss it up to in the red zone in James Hardy, a stud back in Marshawn Lynch and two solid slot receivers in Josh Reed and Roscoe Parrish. Along with a much improved defense, the Bills are a definite playoff contender. Why would Favre not want to go there? I would think that the Bills would be the one nixing the trade as they are very confident in second-year man Trent Edwards.''

Honestly, Scott, if you had one last hurrah in pro football, and someone suggested that you should go to a team that appears to be on the rise but hasn't made the playoffs in nine years, would you want to go? I am bullish on the Bills and think they might be able to win nine this year. But it's not logical in the current power structure of the AFC to suggest they're ahead of New England, Indy, Jacksonville, San Diego ... and probably not ahead of Pittsburgh or Cleveland either.

• NOW THIS IS A GREAT IDEA. From Kevin Rohrbach, of Limerick, Pa.: Regarding ideas for new sections in your Monday Morning Quarterback column: How about a section on the NFL that is devoid of Brett Favre, Bill Belichick, Bill Parcells, or the New England Patriots. Now that would be refreshing!''

I could call it "The Favre/Belichick/Parcells/Patriots-Free Zone.'' And you know what, Kevin? Judging by all the blasting I get for over-writing those topics, you have a lot of company. By the way, in next week's MMQB, I'll have a ballot with 10 ideas that you guys are going to vote for. And you will decide the new additions to the column. So get your voting fingers ready ... and please, no Evan Longoria-ballot-stuffing.

• WAS THE JASON TAYLOR TRADE REALLY SO SMART? From Daniel Cayou, of Columbia, Mo.: "If the Taylor deal was such a great deal for Washington, why did they only make it with their back against the wall? It is not like Phillip Daniels was particularly good or had potential -- he was slightly above average but did play left defensive end. Taylor is light and plays right. I think he will have problems with the offensive right tackles of the NFC East (Jon Runyan, Kareem McKenzie, and Marc Columbo) as they are just maulers/thugs who will beat the hell out of Taylor. I think it's an interesting story, but unless Washington finds someone to play left end to allow Taylor to play right, I see a lot of off-tackle runs by Brandon Jacobs, Marion Barber and Brian Westbrook.''

Very interesting letter, Daniel. Good thoughts. I'm not sure he'd be much better speed-rushing against Flozell Adams, William Thomas and David Diehl, quite frankly. But you can be sure the 'Skins will do a lot to make sure he's not caught up in the kind of traffic that a bigger end like Daniels would be.

• HMMMMM. PROBABLY NOTHING. From Chuck Madden, of Dunwoody, Ga.: "What prevents the Chargers from trading second- and fifth-round picks for Favre? Surely the Pack would go for that. Then Chargers GM A.J. Smith turns around and deals Favre to either the Bears or Vikings. I suspect either team would pay a premium to get better at QB, weaken the Pack, and to stick it to the Packer fans. I can see either paying a first-round pick to accomplish all three. These type trades happen in the NBA (Rasheed Wallace traded from Portland to Atlanta, and a day later to the Pistons) and in MLB (Billy Beane does this often).''

It's an interesting thought, but I would bet the Packers, before dealing Favre, will ask for a gentleman's agreement with the team they'd deal him to that he not be traded. I'm fairly sure the only condition under which Green Bay would trade Favre is that he not be traded a second time.

• GREAT QUESTION. From Matt Brannen, of Houston: "Which would be more worthwhile: a trip to see your baseball team at spring training, or a trip to see your football team at training camp?''

Depends. I think it would depend, if I'm a fan, on how much I could see, and how close I could get to the drills and to the players. For instance, at most spring training sites in the morning, you can stand next to a backstop and see Pedro Martinez practice bunting, for instance. At the Baltimore Ravens' camp, you can be very close to the sidelines and see receivers and linebacker running at you in real drills. That's fun. Now, at some camp sites, you can't get that close.

I remember when Emmitt Smith was at his first day of Arizona Cardinals camp, a fan stepped over a rope on the sidelines, walked five feet to where Emmitt was stretching, and said something like: "Hi Emmitt. Big fan, from Providence, Rhode Island.'' And he then went back and got on the other side of the rope. I doubt things like that happen with A-Rod at Yankee camp in Tampa.

• BEAUTIFUL THOUGHT. From JJ, of Louisville: "It will be good to see a Redskins jersey with "Taylor" on it running around and making plays again.''

Wow. Touching sentiment. That's nice.