A week ago, we spent some time on Saturday night banging out our first-ever PFT Mailbag, a collection of well thought-out questions from you, and shoot-from-the-hip answers from us.

I learned two things from the experience. One, most of you seemed to like it. Two, I need a better Saturday night hobby.

Since I've yet to find one, let's try this again. For Rumor Mill space purposes, it's after the jump.

Who are the toughest teams in the NFL to get information from? — Cen49760.

Few teams are forthcoming with sensitive information about their own organization, unless they have a strategic reason to leak an intriguing nugget. When it comes to non-sensitive, routine information, the worst team, by far, is the Raiders. They rarely send out e-mails announcing roster moves. (When we first asked to be placed on the e-mail list, we were told that the Raiders don't have one.) So the media has to park on the Raiders website, pull up the transactions page, and periodically hit the F5 button in order to find out things that the rest of the teams already know.

At the other end of the spectrum is the Eagles. They promptly send out information about roster moves and player injuries via e-mail and text message.

With more teams adding different offensive formations like the Wildcat, do you think that the third string quarterback rule needs to change or be gotten rid of entirely? — Philip S.

No, because the Wildcat as best utilized relies on the element of surprise that comes from a non-quarterback exiting the huddle and lining up to receive the snap. Teams that hope to use a change-of-pace quarterback do so with the understanding that, if the starting quarterback is injured, the Pat White or Mike Vick alternative may have to play until the fourth quarter, at which time the "emergency" quarterback can enter the game without the other two quarterbacks being barred from returning.

If/when (when) the regular season grows to 18 games, look for the inevitable roster expansion to include permitting teams to have three active quarterbacks and to dress a fourth quarterback on game days.

Adding two games is fine, but how will the NFL make sure the games are meaningful at the end of the year? — Nicholas W.

Great question. With more games, teams could clinch their divisions and, most importantly, home-field advantage in the playoffs even earlier. As much as Commissioner Roger Goodell doesn't like preseason games, he hates regular-season games that operate like preseason games for the postseason.

The NFL's first step in fixing the problem comes from playing intradivision games only during the last two weeks of the regular season. But as we pointed out when the league announced its intention to close the campaign with division rivalries, the Colts still would have quit trying if they played the Titans and Texans instead of the Jets and Bills to close out the 2009 season.

And as we pointed out at pages 56 and 57 of the PFT Season Preview magazine, the only way to make meaningless late-season games meaningful is to find a way to make them genuinely meaningful. "One possibility would be to determine playoff qualification based on the full-season record but to seed the six teams based on their performances in the final four weeks," a certain Internet hack suggested in said magazine.

We also generally like the idea of using an external voting process aimed at ranking the playoff teams based on their level of play down the stretch. But then we think about the manner in which the Associated Press voters bungled the Brian Cushing hCG Mulligan, and we tend to agree with those who believe that entrusting the task to members of the media potentially would result in a cluster of something other than fudge.

Do you think all the Brett Favre, Sidney Rice, and Percy Harvin drama will motivate Adrian Peterson to return to Purple Jesus form? — Jeff M.

I think Peterson's desire to win a Super Bowl and to secure a long-term contract will motivate him to try to put up career numbers. But while the passing game overshadowed and a fumbling problem undermined his performance in 2009, Peterson still gained 1,383 yards rushing. Though it represented a reduction of nearly 400 yards from 2008, when he racked up 1,760, a 311-yard uptick in receiving yards put him only 66 behind his 2008 yards-from-scrimmage total.

Here's another interesting stat -- Peterson fumbled two fewer times in 2009 than he did in 2008.

So he'll be back in 2010. The truth is that he never left.

Is it because we are entering an uncapped year that the Jets seem to be able to sign people to these large contracts? -- Karen A.

If anything, the uncapped year is keeping the Jets from structuring contract extensions in a way that would make the deals more palatable to the players. Left tackle D'Brickashaw Ferguson inked a team-friendly deal that pushes most guaranteed money into 2011 and beyond. Center Nick Mangold's contract represents a big one for a center, but it's hardly a bank-breaker.

As to the new players added in the offseason (cornerback Antonio Cromartie, receiver Santonio Holmes, running back LaDainian Tomlinson, and linebacker Jason Taylor), the Jets acquired each at a relatively small financial investment.

If a player retired with multiple years remaining on his contract and the franchise put the player on the reserve/retired list, would that player's contract continue to run for its duration without paying the player until the contract was up? — Vik A.

If a player retires with time left on his deal, the contract freezes in place. So if a player retires with two years left on his contract and then unretires two years later, the player remains under contract with his former team for two more years.

When a player unretires, the team must decide whether to welcome him back or release him. Two years ago, Brett Favre tried to force the Packers to cut him by abruptly unretiring. But the Packers wanted to keep him from joining the Vikings and they had the cap space to carry his eight-figure base salary while they worked out a trade.

Each year, a specific deadline applies for a retired player to unretire. This year, any retired player must unretire by December 3.

There's one more wrinkle to keep in mind. If a player unretires after the trading deadline in the hopes of playing for a new team, he would have to pass through waivers before becoming a free agent. In 2002, the Redskins released Deion Sanders from the reserve/retired list, at a time when it was believed that he wanted to play for the Raiders. The Chargers blocked the move, claiming Sanders' rights via waivers.

Why the Chargers? Their coach, Marty Schottenheimer, had coached the Redskins in 2001, when Sanders agreed in exchange for getting to keep his signing bonus that he would retire from football. Schottenheimer's move ensured that, at least for the latter stages of the 2002 season, Deion would honor his commitment.

How likely is it that the Vikings move out of Minnesota for a new stadium? — John, NJ.

It's still too early to tell. Earlier this year, the Vikings tried to push through the Legislature a bill that would have partially funded a new stadium; it was believed that the positive buzz from the opening of the Twins' new stadium would fuel the process. The effort ultimately failed, and the 2011 session provides the last chance for getting something done before the Vikings become geographic free agents.

Whether they'd pick up and move after the 2011 season remains to be seen. Our guess is that they'd try one more time to get a deal done for a new stadium in 2012, and that if successful they'd stay in the Metrodome while the construction proceeds.

At some point, the folks in Minnesota need to take this seriously, or the Vikings will move to a city that realizes the broad base of advantages that flow from having an NFL team. If it gets to that point, look for Zygi Wilf to sell the franchise to interests that would move the team to L.A.

Are the owners in agreement on what is a successfully negotiated labor agreement? Why hasn't Roger Goodell gotten the owners together to decide on what the goal of the negotiations are from the owners' perspective? It seems like it will be hard enough to get the players and the owners to agree, but it seems even harder if the owners are not on the same page with what they want other than reduction of the 60 percent the players get. — Mike B.

The owners are as united as any group of owners ever have been on the key issue in the negotiations -- the amount of money the players will get. Everything else is negotiable, and the owners have delegated to its bargaining team the authority to shape the contours of the collateral issues.

The big issues are simple: money, a rookie wage scale, and expansion of the season to 18 games. With quarterly ownership meetings and continuous communication from the league office, the owners know where the league stands. Even if some of them disagree they are all committed to projecting a united front.

For now.

Do you think the league should look at considering lifetime bans for those involved in repeated criminal activity or for those who commit more serious crimes? — Will S.

The Personal Conduct Policy already provides for possible banishment from the league. To date, no one has done enough to justify being banished without also being suspended indefinitely, as a practical matter, via extended incarceration.

Do you think the Colts and Pats could possibly be delaying the presumably record-breaking Peyton Manning and Tom Brady contract extensions until late in the season as a P.R. move geared toward giving the owners' leverage? — Justin, Cincinnati.

Having Manning and Brady unsigned does not give the league any specific leverage when it comes to the labor negotiations. In fact, if the new contracts aren't finalized before the end of the season, there's a chance that the union could try to drive a wedge between Colts owner Jim Irsay, Patriots owner Robert Kraft, and other owners by pushing hard for a new CBA that omits the franchise tag.

If the union makes a sufficiently compelling offer to the league but hinges it on the removal of the franchise tag, Irsay and Kraft will be conflicted. The NFL could get a good deal, but Irsay and Kraft would have to risk seeing their franchise quarterbacks hit the open market.

In the end, it's unlikely that the union will push very hard to get rid of the franchise tag, because it affects only a small percentage of the players. In a capped environment, the non-franchised players typically don't object when one man is prevented from gobbling up too much of the money that they all have to find a way to divvy up.

Peyton Manning made a point about the UFA not having a chance to make the roster if the preseason shrinks. He used Jeff Saturday as a example. My question to you is: What can they do to allow the UFA to have the time needed to show their talent, with only two preseason games? — Mary S.

For starters, not every veteran player will complain about undrafted players not having an extended chance to make the roster. For each undrafted player who wins a job, someone else has to go. And given a minimum-salary structure that's based on tenure, older players become vulnerable when a younger (and cheaper) guy shows that he can get the job done.

With a shortened preseason, the NFL would have an incentive to invest in an in-season developmental league, like the UFL. Young players who weren't able to stick on an NFL roster can get game experience via a true minor league, where players could be called up and sent down, like in baseball.

Will you please explain again why front-loaded contracts aren't favored? I would have thought that for veterans, front-loaded contracts would be preferred because they get the bulk of the money while they're still "good"/"young" enough to earn it -- as opposed to the bulk of the money tied up several years down the road with a strong likelihood that the team will cut the veteran so the team doesn't have to pay the money. — Shelley O.

With non-guaranteed salaries in most NFL contracts, front-loaded deals are favored by the players. The problem comes from getting each player to understand that his signing bonus wasn't a lottery prize, but advance compensation for future services. All too often, a player who has progressed four or five years into his deal will look at his current base salary, compare it to the base salaries paid to younger and inferior players, and complain that he needs a raise.

If the league were to replace the system of signing bonuses and front-loaded deals with guaranteed salaries, teams could feel compelled to keep certain players around, since they'd be paid whether they're on the team or not. This ultimately costs other players a chance at winning a job.

Finally, it's important to remember that a team doesn't enter into a long-term deal with the intention of cutting the player in a future year. But the current structure gives teams the option to do so. That's why most contracts in a capped environment are valued based on the payout over the first three years; it's widely assumed that teams won't take the cap hit resulting from cutting a player within the first three years of a new long-term deal. After that, the team can choose to sever ties if the player's performance doesn't justify the continued financial commitment.

If Glenn Dorsey and Tyson Jackson continue to disappoint as 3-4 defensive ends, is there a possibility they're traded for any value to a team that runs the 4-3? — Keith.

Dorsey was drafted by a coaching staff that was using a 4-3 defense. Last year, there was chatter that the Falcons, who were torn between Dorsey and quarterback Matt Ryan with the third pick in the 2008 draft, were considering a deal for Dorsey. A trade to Atlanta or elsewhere wouldn't be a shock.

Jackson was drafted by the current regime, and they'll likely give him some more time to develop, given the significant financial investment that was made.

I wanted to get your opinion on the Buffalo Bills' quarterback race. To me it's a no-brainer to start Brian Brohm, if he disappoints, draft or trade for the quarterback position. Ryan Fitzpatrick and Trent Edwards have proven they're not the answer. Who do you believe should get the nod and why? — Garrett B.

If Brohm had any discernible skill or potential, the Packers wouldn't have given up on him so quickly. By all appearances, Brohm has found the ceiling on his God-given football abilities, and he hasn't been able to bust through it.

Edwards seems to be the lesser of three evils at this point, but I continue to be intrigued by the decision of a new G.M. and new head coach not to address the position in the offseason. It seems as if the Bills are willing to tread water at the position for 2010, and that they already have a plan for 2011.

Given that assistant G.M. Doug Whaley spent many years with the Steelers and in light of the success that coach Chan Gailey once had 13 years ago in Pittsburgh with the fleet-footed Kordell Stewart at quarterback, we wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Bills quietly are targeting Dennis Dixon, who'll be a restricted free agent after the coming season.