MORT'S MAILBAG | Nov. 14

Q: Can you explain the Drew Henson-Pittsburgh Steelers news you mentioned on Sunday? I'd like know what Pitt's chances are and what kind of quarterback assets you think Henson offers. -- Dave McMillan from Lake Tahoe, Nev.

MORT -- Dave, here's what I have reported on Henson, as it pertains to the Steelers: Several sources tell me that Henson will play pro football in 2004 and that he has targeted the Steelers as a preferred choice. The Texans own his rights and a trade would have to be worked out. There have been minimal low-level discussions between the teams and I don't know whether the Steelers will actually pursue a trade, which undoubtedly will cost at least a first-round pick. Henson is only 24 and he has some significant skills with that great Michigan breeding. Obviously, the Steelers need to address their future at QB. It makes a lot of sense. Other teams will be involved, too.

Q: Since Pittsburgh wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald attended military school for a year after high school, isn't he eligible for the 2004 NFL draft despite being listed as a true sophomore (since he would be three years removed from high school)? -- Chris from Birmingham, AL

MORT -- Chris, this is a subject that will get considerable discussion in January. I'm still a little foggy on the facts because I thought I read that Fitzgerald enrolled at military school (Valley Forge, Pa.) and played six games in lieu of his senior prep season because a transfer fell through. I'm not sure he is three years removed from high school. As of now, the NFL considers him ineligible but I think Fitzgerald may have an interesting and legitimate case. As you know, Fitzgerald very likely would be a top-five draft pick, maybe even the No. 1 guy. But staying in school hasn't hurt Roy Williams (Texas), who also is a top five pick. There are enough avenues for players to acquire loans and insurance that makes it a little more comfortable to stay in school. There also is plenty of data via the NFL Players Association that strongly suggests that players who stay in school end up being more successful in the long-term in the NFL.

Q: Mort, Mike Sherman seems to not know what he is doing in the draft or free agency. Since he has been picking the players, I haven't noticed many play makers or difference makers. Nick Barnett this year seems to be good, but what else has Sherman done? If he doesn't start hitting on more of his choices, would the Packers ever bring in someone to pick the players? Or in order to get a general manager, would the Packers need to let go of Mike Sherman? -- Sammy E, from Fitchburg, Wisconsin

	Barnett

MORT -- Sammy, the jury is still out on Sherman's ability as a GM. I can't imagine that the Packers would ever fire Sherman because he is an outstanding coach, and I really mean that. Ex-Packers GM Ron Wolf often says that most personnel whizzes bat around .300 on picking players, or at least that's how he has even characterized his own success. But Wolf, as you know, hit home runs particularly in the trade and free-agent market, where he landed Brett Favre, Reggie White and Ahman Green -- all significant difference makers, like you're talking about. Sherman's most glaring mistake has come in free agency when he signed DE Joe Johnson. He swung and missed, probably because Wolf missed on DE Jamal Reynolds in his last draft. But the Packers have pretty good talent, and most of it is relatively young, which is why I'll be surprised if Brett Favre doesn't give this two more years. As for Barnett, that's a pretty good late-round first pick. He's in the running for the NFL defensive rookie of the year.

Q: It's now been 10 years since the advent of free agency. There's no question that it has benefited the players, but every other aspect of the game has suffered in the process. Due to the constant movement of players, and the fact that the players now have more power in an organization than the coaches, the quality of play on the field is pathetic. Fans don't have anything left to root for but uniforms, because the players come and go, and are only loyal to their agents and their bank accounts. I know free agency will not end. But is it possible that there could be adjustments to the system at some point to give teams more of an ability to hold on to players without going broke? And if so, what kind of changes could there be? -- John from Washington D.C.

	Faulk

MORT -- John, you raise very legitimate points and concerns. I also think the reason we have what appears to be sloppy quarterback play also can be traced to the lack of continuity on many teams. I don't think you'll ever see players take a step backwards in free agency. Some people think the NFL should adopt the so-called "Larry Bird rule" that the NBA employed, which would allow an NFL team to re-sign its veteran players without a big salary-cap consequence. What I have found is that most NFL teams gladly use the cap as an excuse to, say, rid itself of many popular veteran players. There are teams, like the Rams, who have done a pretty good job of managing their rosters by keeping their core star players like Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce, Orlando Pace and, yes, even Kurt Warner. And Faulk could have tested the free-agent waters for a much bigger contract, but he was happy in St. Louis and loved the offensive scheme, so he took a "lesser" deal. That is rare, yes. Expansion hasn't helped, either. I think that if owners would be more patient with coaches (another problem), you might see better quality. But this is the instant-gratification era. The old days are gone. You can only hope that by December, some really good teams emerge. In the AFC, we have a few, like the Chiefs, Titans, Patriots and Colts.

Q: Chris, why aren't the Eagles getting any credit for making a hard decision with Hugh Douglas, considering he has only 15 tackles and one sack this year? -- Matt from Hood River, OR

MORT -- Matt, thanks for the reminder. Yes, as the Eagles steadily mount some wins, it is appropriate to say that it appears they made the right call. It was a tough call, but Douglas' value also had a high premium in the locker room as a leader. But leadership only gets you so many dollars -- performance is what counts and the Eagles were concerned about their investment in an over-30 player.