Inbox: There's plenty to like

[Cheesehead]

Jacob from Mukwonago, WI


Do you think 10 years from now there would be a possibility of Washington Redskins throwback jerseys? Or will the logo and mascot just be shunned from the league?


The franchise isn't retiring the name and logo in order to celebrate it for posterity's sake later on. That would be missing the point. More like whiffing on it.


Michael from Alameda, CA


In reference to Matthias of San Antonio's Eddie Mathews question yesterday, Mathews is the answer to this MLB trivia question: "Who was the only major league player that played for the same franchise in three different cities?"


One year apiece in Boston and Atlanta sandwiching 13 years in Milwaukee. Pretty cool. Timing is everything.


Levi from St. Paul, MN


That feeling you get in the pit of your stomach when something bad is about to happen, well, I'm getting that feeling in reference to NFL football being played. But I don't know if it isn't for the best. When do we put money in front of people's lives? I know we must slowly and responsibly open the country, but are professional sports being played worth someone possibly losing their life? And I'm a sports nut. Is my train of thought wrong? Can it be done responsibly? What are your thoughts?


I've been wrestling with those questions since March. To include a submission from Julian from Gastonia, NC, it's also troubling to think about high-BMI individuals being among the highest risk for severity of COVID-19. Football players are in great cardiovascular shape, but that doesn't change the fact many are walking around carrying a lot more weight than your average man. There's also so little known about the long-term effects of contracting this virus, no matter how quickly or easily someone recovers from an initial infection. But football is inherently risky regardless, and the economics are an inescapable factor. There are no easy answers in my mind.


Hannes from Milwaukee, WI


With the typical NFL career being much shorter compared to other sports, I doubt opt-out is a good concept at all. Unless the player has a long-term contract with plenty of guarantees left on it, he would face a very tough decision about retaining his value versus long-term health risk. Doesn't that seem unfair to players on contract years or those who are on the roster bubble? Besides that, the NFL's product could take another substantial hit from a season without its biggest stars I assume.


Those also are all valid questions. The vast majority of players on NFL rosters are not in a financial or career position to opt out for a year and assume they have a spot in 2021. There will be pressure to play more so than in other sports. Competition in the NFL is unforgiving.


Chris from Rochester, NY


Your "All righty then" response to the first question of yesterday's Inbox got me thinking. If you could use .gif files to respond to II submissions, which one do you think would be your most-used?


Any and all involving Cosmo Kramer.


Robert from Salem, WI


Based on changes to the team relative to last year's team, what area or facet of the game do feel is most poised to exceed last year's team? And which faces the biggest challenge to meet last year's play?


This is an admittedly broad answer, but I think the potential progress of the entire offense in Year 2 of LaFleur's scheme is intriguing. The unit now has a three-headed backfield, promising youth at tight end, and potential for considerable growth at receiver (plus Devin Funchess in the mix), with Aaron Rodgers having greater command of the overall system. As long as the offensive line maintains its collective high level sans Bulaga, there's plenty to like. On the flip side, the performance of the pass rush will be the most difficult to repeat. The stats said five games of four or more sacks. The eye test said quarterbacks were constantly harassed. Both are high bars to match while simultaneously fixing the run defense.