E-Mailing It In

Each week, Dan Rubenstein, Ty Hildenbrandt and Jacob Osterhout will jump on e-mail and riff about various subjects in the news offered up by SI.com's Jimmy Traina.

Traina: What should Roger Goodell do about Plaxico Burress and Michael Vick? Should they both be allowed to play in 2009?

Hildenbrandt: Well, Goodell has taken a hard-line approach ever since becoming commissioner a few years ago, and until this point, his most notable decisions surrounding personal conduct have involved Pacman Jones. In other words, it hasn't exactly been rocket science. So, while I do believe in second chances, I also think he needs to stick to his guns and hand down additional punishment to Burress and Vick, if only to avoid looking like a hypocrite.

Rubenstein: If they're both completely cleared by Johnny Law, they should both be given some sort of probationary shot at playing, most likely after a suspension. From a purely football standpoint, how Vick's season plays out is infinitely more interesting than anything happening inside Brett Favre's shoulder. As for Burress, I'm not sure I want to be a fan of a league without at least one guy named "Plaxico." If nothing else, please think of the team name opportunities in fantasy leagues everywhere.

Osterhout: Nobody ruffles my feathers like Kaiser Roger Goodell. When did the NFL commissioner become God's right-hand man? Michael Vick has already been punished, and punished harshly by the American justice system. He's paid his price. He's done his time. Suspending him from the NFL serves no further purpose other than provide a cheap show of power. Does Goodell believe he understands justice better than U.S. judges? And how can he even determine an appropriate punishment for Burress when his trial hasn't even occurred? It seems to me Goodell piling on more punishment for a quarterback who already spent 23 months in the slammer and a wide receiver who is so dumb he shot himself in the leg is gratuitous and self-serving.

Hildenbrandt: Jacob, the issue of whether Roger Goodell should have "kaiser" credentials is an entirely separate ball of wax. Whether it's piling on is almost irrelevant: he's in charge of the league and seems determined to nip any potential image problems in the bud. Right now, I'm looking at this like I do a bad MLB umpire -- as long as he's consistent for everyone, I'm content. In reality, there's a better question we should be asking: Who will have jurisdiction to reprimand Goodell if he decides to send our precious Super Bowl overseas at some point in the future?

Osterhout: Listen, I understand Goodell is in charge of the league's image, and as long as the NFL is raking in money, we shouldn't question his judgment. But the law of Goodell must not supersede the law of the United States. As of now, Plaxico is innocent and Goodell would be wise to let the courts weigh in before he re-mounts his high horse.

Rubenstein: It's a new era in the NFL, and Goodell's at the helm, like it or not. The league is its own universe, and the sooner players and fans realize this, the better. As long as the league is making money and growing, it's difficult to criticize the moral direction the commissioner is taking the league in. Aside from Ty's fear of Bulgaria getting a team (most likely in Sofia or Plovdiv), players are getting their shots, even if they have to be on their very best behavior. Vick and Burress simply need to play the game to play the game, if that makes any sense.

Hildenbrandt: Make no mistake, if Bulgaria got a team, the NFL would be dead to me. That is, of course, if it were a team other than the Lions.

Rubenstein: Please, you wouldn't read Chris Cooley's blog if the Redskins were sent overseas? I'm fine with a little less Daniel Snyder in my life, actually.