The Football Diner Big Interview:
Mike Carlson
interviewed by Michael E Lawrence
16/4/2008
 
It’s lunchtime, and much-loved football analyst Mike Carlson is ordering dim sum expertly from the specials menu of a Chinatown restaurant, including lo pak ko paste, or chicken feet. “I had my parents over, years and years ago,” he says, “and when these came I sorta said ‘Here try these!’ My father put one a spoon, and my mother said ‘What is that?!’ and slapped it away. I took it and walked it on the tablecloth, and she yelled ‘It’s a foot!’”
 
Mike Carlson, one suspects, isn’t fazed by much of anything. Now settled down with his family in the Hampshire countryside, he’s the witty, calm face of Channel Five’s late, live NFL shows, the nattily dressed analyst on the BBC’s Super Bowl, a much respected fountain of knowledge and the country’s de facto prime minister of football.
 
With nothing but time to burn and jasmine tea to sip, the Diner was lucky enough to pick the considerable brains of a man who’s been a central figure in football in Europe for two decades and counting, covering off his own career, the Super Bowl, Wembley, the upcoming draft, and plenty more.
 
And, for what it’s worth, we stuck to the noodles.
 
Hi Mike, great to meet you! It’s the NFL off-season, how are you keeping busy?
 
At the moment I’m actually covering poker tournaments, doing commentary as the lead announcer, and I’m also writing obituaries for the Guardian, doing them as they arise or writing them for their files in anticipation of people passing on. I have to be very careful when I’m researching information for those, you don’t want the people you’re covering to get wind of the fact you’re preparing an obituary! I tend to do them on American personalities – I did Otto Graham for example, and Robert Cade, who invented Gatorade in the 60s, among others. I also try to do arts pieces – book reviewing, writing about film,,interviews and so on – as well as my regular writing on the NFL for the NFLUK, obviously.
 
Wow, you really are keeping busy. You’re obviously a football junkie, how do you cope with its absence during the off-season?
 
Well, I miss it in the sense that I was doing a year-round column for First Down in years past, and I also used to cover NFL Europe too, either on television or for Pro Football Weekly and the Herald Tribune, so I miss the fact I was involved 52 weeks a year. I love working on NFLUK.com, and we do the occasional webcam piece there, and of course I get to do my weekly column Coast to Coast, which keeps me on top of what’s happening throughout the league. I’m a baseball junkie too though, that keeps me diverted!
 
Tell us about the journey you’ve taken to being a presenter on UK television…
 
I worked for ABC Sports as their man in Europe for years, setting up programs for them, buying rights, liasing with production teams, helping the producer and so on – and in that situation what I had to do was really quickly learn about a sport, because you needed to know what to do with your cameras, who the main players were, what it was you were really looking for. I had to do that for all sorts of different sports, which really helped me in learning to break down film quickly and thoroughly. It also helped me learning what you do on TV, so that when I started presenting, I wasn’t intimidated, I knew the main thing was you have to be able to talk while someone else is screaming in your ear. That’s the number one skill. The second one is trying to hit the count! I switched to working in front of the camera for Screensport in the early 90s, covering basketball at first, and suddenly I didn’t have to worry about solving behind the camera issues. My first gig was covering a tournament with Gary Bloom in Holland, and early on the feed went down, and I started to open up my book of contacts to figure out how we could get it back. Gary said, ‘What are you doing? All you have to do is wait for the feed to come back and then when they tell you to start talking again, go for it.’ Then and there I thought, ‘I like this job!’ I wound up doing baseball with Nick Halling after that, and when they started doing NFL Europe, Nick mentioned I knew football, and they gave me a call. So I started doing football with him, and then the same thing happened in ‘95 when Sky came along to cover regular NFL games.
 
And you played football yourself at an Ivy League school…
 
It was ‘Sub-Ivy League’, at Wesleyan, part of the ‘little three’ schools – Amherst, Wesleyan and Williams, the big three being Yale, Harvard and Princeton. It’s division III, they’re highly academic schools, and I played tight end. I had gone to a local prep school on an academic scholarship, and I was a year young – I’d skipped a grade – so I was a thirteen-year-old freshman who went out for football, mostly because my father had. The school had what they called post-grads, which are guys who’d already finished high school but couldn’t get into college and needed to get their scores up, and they’d be involved in the football team too. So by the time I was 15 I was playing with these guys who were 20, 21 years old! I was a defensive end, basically playing in an Oklahoma 5-4, which was outdated even then, playing at about 175 on a line that otherwise averaged about 230. I was kind of a pusher, meaning I didn’t really have to knock people over, simply not let them get upfield. My senior year I wound up playing almost a kind of linebacker position. We played Valley Forge Military Academy that season, and they had a 6’6” split end that split out wide on his own – he didn’t even go in the huddle, he’d just stand outside and get signalled to – and I’d line up head on against him and go for the ball. It meant I ended up with two interceptions my senior year as a down lineman, the other against the Southern Connecticut State college freshman team, 57 yards for a touchdown!
 
And then you moved onto Wesleyan…
 
Yeah, I went to Wesleyan basically because they didn’t recruit me! Penn. came along and started to recruit me but my parents hadn’t been happy with me applying to Swarthmore, also in the Philadelphia area, because it was too far away. Penn. said to me they’d watched the films, and they’d like the way I played, only I was much too small and would have to get up to about 225, which in those days was fairly large. It meant I’d just be lifting weights my first year, which didn’t sound great. Also, I’d played lacrosse in high school before they dropped it as a sport, and I really wanted to play again, but Penn. Said no, you’ll be lifting weights. When I visited Wesleyan, the coach, Don Russell, said ‘If you want to play football, you can play, and if you don’t want to play, you won’t lose your scholarship’, and that since it was the long-haired 60s, most people on campus would think it weird I did want to! I’d taken a bus to get there, and the guy who was showing me around took me back to his fraternity house where we shot pool for a while, and then he asked me ‘How are you getting home?’ When I told him ‘by bus’ he said, ‘I’ll drive you home’. I asked ‘Don’t you have class?’ to which he responded ‘Yeah, but it doesn’t matter’, and I thought, ‘Ok! This seems like a great place!’ So I wound up in Wesleyan, and got to play lacrosse and didn’t ever get much bigger. I lifted weights a little, but I played football basically at 195, 200, which was pretty much the norm for a tight end at that level.
 
And that’s where you developed your nous for ‘seeing’ football…
 
Well, I never got particularly het up about the game – you know how guys will growl and get worked up – that wasn’t me, I was never particularly one of the toughest guys on the team. But I was always pretty good at seeing what was going on. I remember my last game, one of our captains blamed me for missing an assignment, and when the coach asked him what happened he said ‘He was outside me, he was Carlson’s guy’, and everybody took his word for it. Two days later the Coach came to me and said ‘Youwere right all along, that guy was inside you.’
 
But you never thought about getting into coaching?
 
You know it’s funny, I’ve done a little bit, just casually, working with kids, and it never occurred to me it might be something I wanted to do. And I think it’s a function of having multiple interests – if you’re gonna be a good coach, you really do have to focus in, to have tunnel vision. Bill Belichick knew he wanted to be a coach, and he basically concentrated on that.
 
You could see that when you and he were at Wesleyan?
 
I didn’t know it at the time, but I can see it in retrospect, that he was a natural coach. Like me he was a guy who wasn’t an exceptional athlete, but he knew what he was supposed to do, how schemes were supposed to run and so on. I was a senior when he was a freshman, though he didn’t play football in that first year – I’m not quite sure why now, he might have been hurt.
 
Presumably the Belichick we see now is a persona, there’s a person there that’s covering himself up a little for coaching reasons…
 
According to guys who I know who know him well, there’s a much warmer guy there, to hear from the people in his fraternity house for example. But I think he understands from watching what happens to coaches – and his father was one – he learned that you can’t give anything anyway, that you’re better off not giving anything away to the media, because they’re not your friends. In the old days there would be loyalties, but the media now has no loyalties at all. Do I think Belichick knew he was breaking the rules with the Spygate stuff? Of course he did, he’s too smart not to know. But I think it was a sort of unwritten agreement between teams not to worry about it. Why the fuss was made is another story, maybe because they were doing it too blatantly, or maybe the Mangini-Belichick thing. It’s disingenuous I think, to claim that he didn’t know it was against the rules. But after it came out, so many other ex-coaches came forward and said ‘Well, we used to do that!’ or ‘So and so used to send spies here’ and ‘Such and such would go through the garbage cans after meetings to see what they could find!’ Coaches are paranoid!
 
In terms of presenting, you’re now very much in the expert analyst role, though when you started on Sky you were more of a presenter, how did that come about?
 
Well with NFL Europe in the 90s I was playing the analyst role while Kevin Cadle was the host, but when they started covering regular season NFL games, they wanted an American host, and Kevin was coaching in basketball so I took that on, while Nick became the analyst. Then when Kev stopped coaching, and Sky could use him as host, Five picked up the rights to football and I was able to hop over there. I was glad to take on that role because it made more sense really – at Sky I was asking Nick the questions, and Nick will tell you the same thing: it didn’t quite work out! I don’t mind being the host at all, in fact I loved hosting baseball with Josh Chetwynd on Five, because Josh is more au fait with baseball than I am now, and we could have a really good back and forth. Same with when he hosted NFL briefly. Overall though, I’d rather have somebody ask me the questions rather than me asking questions I already know the answer to!
 
And the Channel Five model is very much to have you as an expert alongside a novice, right?
 
Well certainly they want an English host that the audience can identify with, you could call it the Nicky Horne syndrome. But it works, and if you have somebody who’s both entertaining and knows the sport a bit, then you’re way ahead. Colin (Murray) was great with that. He knew enough about American Football to know what the next question to ask should be. That’s the key point, because if I know I can deliver a short answer and that the right follow up question is coming, then I’d rather do that. If I don’t know that, I’m forced to give much longer answers, which are less suited to television.
 
And you’ve developed chemistry with Nat Coombs over the last year too, you could see that unfolding as the season went along...
 
Absolutely. The difference between Nat and Colin was that Colin was already an experienced broadcaster, whereas Nat was a standup who hadn’t done TV, so he was new to it, to the producer talking in your ear while you’re talking or listening and so on. It makes it hard to concentrate on what your next question is going to be when you’re adapting to that. So what you saw last year was Nat relaxing partly with me, but more with the business of being a TV presenter.
 
Will Nat be back in 2009?
 
Oh he definitely is. They didn’t want to keep switching guys around in years past, but circumstances made it happen sadly. Simon Golding had his own work to do, then Colin was his successor and his commitments to the BBC prevented him from coming back. They had to search quickly and really wanted a British host, which ruled Josh out, and Nat came along and should be here to stay. Channel Five wants each sport it broadcasts – football, baseball, hockey and so on – to have its own identity and its own presenters, so it’s developed along those lines.
 
What about the popularity of the sport now, especially in the wake of the London game?
 
The weird thing is we ended up having the same discussions about last year’s London game as we were having in 1985. I was on BBC Sunday breakfast and the woman asked ‘Why should we be interested in this all of a sudden?’ And I said ‘well, it’s been TV here for 25 years! It’s not like it’s the first time an NFL game at Wembley has been sold out! It’s a niche thing and it’s always going to be a niche – you’ll never have the participant foundation. You’ll never have a British league that has a fanbase to compete with the NFL, unless the NFL moves a team to London. And of course you’ll never had the widespread grassroots participation you need; I can’t see that happening, at least not for a very long time.
 
How about the idea of three or four games being played overseas as part of an expanded regular season?
 
I think multiple cities works out fine. I like the FA idea where everybody plays one week in their season abroad. British sportsfans resisted that, but American fans are willing to give up a game at home, on the grounds it might be better for their team. I can understand the negative response to that kind of scheme in Premiership Football, partly because there’s also the whole problem of promotion and relegation, and home grounds give such a tremendous advantage, but I think in NFL terms it would work fine.
 
Do you like the look of the Saints-Chargers match up in Wembley later in the year?
 
It’s no coincidence these two teams have powerful offenses, the NFL wants a better game with higher scoring than last year, although the weather conditions played a big role in that. I think Alistair Kirkwood (NFLUK CEO) has since guaranteed that whichever teams come to London from now on, one will be the Super Bowl champion and one will have the first pick in the draft just like last year! The Chargers and Saints – no matter what happens to the teams – by rights it should be a good game, even in bad conditions. You’ve got some really major offensive stars to market it around in Ladainian Tomlinson and Reggie Bush, and based on the announcement at the Super Bowl, Luis Castillo and Drew Brees are great ambassadors too. Now the fact that both teams have stadium issues in their respective cities is purely coincidental, honest! In fairness to New Orleans, I think they can justify it a little in tourist terms; it should help with getting tourism back up after all that’s happened there. San Diego I think just want to up their profile, but they also want the city to build them a new stadium.
 
And there are two more games in the next two years – will the participants be chosen on a similar basis?
 
Well the book on that is that the priority will be teams that don’t automatically have sell outs at home games, which is why we thought Jacksonville would be coming over this year. You’d think teams on the East Coast would have the advantage too, in terms of flights and travel times. I think what will happen this year is San Diego will play on the East Coast then hop over to London before its bye. And teams make money out of this – I think they’re reimbursed in some way for lost ticket revenue, not to mention the strength of the pound against the dollar reducing expenses.
 
What about this issue of the turf being cut too short for football (soccer) purposes in last year’s game?
 
They don’t replace turf in Britain the way they do in the States. Remember the Pittsburgh game we covered last year where the turf was an awful mess? That had been laid the day before and then it rained from that point forward until game time – but even though it was horrible, it didn’t actually come up like the Wembley turf did. Here in the UK groundsmen will simply plant grass seed and wait a year. I also got the impression that the grass itself was thinner – the actual blades. I don’t know if that’s true but it did seem like a very slick surface. In truth, I think if the weather had been good it wouldn’t have mattered though. The funny thing was that when the England football team played Croatia the next week you could still see the markings. I’m convinced it was deliberate so they could blame the American Football game for England’s losing the game! And the TV announcers certainly picked up on it!
 
You were covering the Super Bowl for the BBC. How did you feel about the outcome?
 
The Patriots’ year was unique in history – I can’t think of such a successful season that gave so many people so little pleasure! It was an extraordinary season in a lot of ways, especially when you think that they were without Richard Seymour initially, and Rodney Harrison, and then lost Sammy Morris and Roosevelt Colvin at mid-season.. That was the biggest difference for that team, because the Patriots with Adalius Thomas inside, even though Thomas might actually be a better outside linebacker, were a much better defensive team. With Colvin still there, it balanced the team, and it made Teddy Bruschi and Junior Seau better because they weren’t playing so many downs. Before Colvin went down, nobody could run against them. After, it became a lot easier. Having said all that, they should have lost to the Ravens, and in the Super Bowl, they were completely outplayed, though the game could have been won if Asante Samuel holds on to his interception. It was one of the really great Super Bowls, it was a great ending, and the Giants deserved to win.
 
Are the Giants a legitimate force to stay in the NFL?
 
I don’t think so. I think they hit form at the right time, and if you buy into football gods and destiny and all that, obviously they played the Patriots hard in the last week, and went into the playoffs with momentum and the gods rewarded them.
 
Do you think the Patriots lacked motivation and focus?
 
I asked Belichick a question at the press conference that was essentially ‘The Patriots try and approach things as professionals, as if they’re simply doing their jobs, so how do you get a team that prides itself on going in week in and week out and doing their jobs, to get up for the biggest game of the year?’ and his basic answer was, kind of inevitably, ‘They’re professional enough to motivate themselves.’ But I think it’s half true that they weren’t up enough for it, they thought they could win going out and playing their usual game – and the Giants simply outsmarted and out hustled them. If you look at the tape, at the Giants gameplan, beyond the stuff like Kawika Mitchell showing blitz really well then dropping back instead, it seemed to me that whenever they were rushing they were always doing so towards the middle, because Tom Brady traditionally steps up and forward. But even the guys who weren’t rushing the middle, when they were blocked, they were letting the blockers take them to the middle. So a couple of times on really key plays Brady gets either sacked or hit because he stepped up into all that open area, but Justin Tuck in particular was blocked into him by the tackle, even though the tackle’s doing what he’s supposed to. I’m convinced that was part of the gameplan from Steve Spagnuolo, to protect the inside first.
 
It’s surprising because what pundits were saying needed to happen – that the Giants had to pressure Brady for example – is exactly what occurred. You’d think New England would have been ready for them…
 
It’s true, all of the things people said the Giants needed to do – pressure Brady, control the ball – they did. I figured it would be a close game but I couldn’t bring myself to pick them to win. I think the two key points in the game were 1) Belichick not trying the 48 yard field goal in the first half on fourth and 13, especially in that stadium, where there was no wind, and 2) Ahmad Bradshaw taking the fumble recovery away from Pierre Woods, and Belichick not challenging that, though the challenge might not have gone his way. I believe Woods was down and had possession of the ball. But overall the Giants definitely deserved to win. Of course the real reason they lost was that Belichick was wearing that girly spanking new red hooded top, not the usual dirty, grey cutoff sweatshirt!
 
Did you enjoy covering the game itself?
 
I was really happy to be doing it, it was just such a thrill actually to be out there, I was like a kid! I’d been to Super Bowl XX as a spectator, through ABC, but this was something else. Working with Rod Woodson was fantastic, and it was wonderful to do serious commentary alongside such a great – he had a real knack for pitching his commentary at the right level for the audience – explaining concepts where necessary while also doing good, thorough analysis without being too esoteric or technical.
 
Ok, the NFL draft – give us an impromptu top 10 as you see it now…
 
Well this will change of course, but if I’m Miami, I take Jake Long, because he improves my team at both tackle positions, with Vernon Carey moving to the right side. If I’m Bill Parcells I’m tempted to take Chris Long, because Parcells has always gone for defensive playmakers. Having said that, the Rams will then take whichever Long is left. They could use an offensive lineman for sure, and they’ll have the advantage of not necessarily having to play him immediately, or they could play him on the right until Orlando Pace move on. Equally, they need a replacement for Leonard Little at defensive end sooner rather than later. They might want a more explosive pass rusher, with Adam Carriker on the other end, so they might think about Vernon Gholston, but I suspect they’ll take Chris Long. Then, Atlanta with the third pick. Everybody I’ve looked at tends to project Glenn Dorsey there, and I think that’s probably the best pick for them, though that assumes they don’t think Matt Ryan is going to be their quarterback. Right now their quarterback is Chris Redman! But again, you can’t assume in the NFL a rookie quarterback is going to come in and start, and play well. How many rookies are going to come in and play at a level better than the level Redman was playing at last year? The temptation for Atlanta has to be to use the first pick on a more pressing need, and then to select a passer in round two, someone from Joe Flacco, Chad Henne or Brian Brohm, who can be groomed into a starter later on.
 
What about Oakland at four?
 
Now we come to Al Davis! He’s tough to read, especially since he doesn’t cast a reflection in a mirror… I’m gonna say Vernon Gholston, principally because he makes the most sense, and if I’m Rob Ryan I’m crying myself to sleep every night if that’s not the pick. People talk about Darren McFadden, and I can see Al being in love with McFadden, but I can also see him drafting him to trade him if, say, Jerry Jones is really sniffing around. But Gholston makes too much sense, he’s got the measurables like McFadden, and he’s the pick. At five, Kansas City. I’m gonna say Ryan Clady, because it’s such a huge need for them. In the NFL, picking for need has really gone down in popularity, nobody really does it any more, to avoid reaching. I think two thirds of NFL teams will prefer to take the better value guy than to reach. But saying all that, I just see this as such a need pick and even if he doesn’t start immediately, he can be a fixture soon. They could take Ryan, but you’ve got to give Brodie Croyle a chance with a decent supporting cast, you have to honour that investment really. They’re not gonna take Sedrick Ellis because their front four, while it’s not great, is OK. The Jets at six: McFadden. I don’t see how they can pass on him, and Thomas Jones can’t have that much left in the tank. Then you get to the Patriots at seven, and if Ellis falls to them at seven I think they take him, even though it’s not a pressing need.
 
Is he big enough to play on the nose in their scheme?
 
Well I think they could use him at any of the three down positions like they did with Richard Seymour early on, but mostly to spell and eventually replace Vince Wilfork when he will fork too much in. Ellis is simply the best player left. I can also see them taking Clady for next year, down the line, but I can’t really see them reaching for a rookie corner. I think if Ellis is there, they take him. At eight is Baltimore, and this may be where Matt Ryan lands. I can see them not taking him, but the new coaching staff might want their own guy. Saying that, Ozzie Newsome might figure the trio he’s collected – Troy Smith, Kyle Boller, Steve McNair – will work out with the new staff, that Cameron will get a starter out of them. If it’s not Matt Ryan, they would take the first corner, probably Leodis McKelvin, who will suit their system, though they could equally take Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie. I’ll say McKelvin, which leaves Matt Ryan still available.
 
Bold! The Bengals at nine?
 
The Bengals will take a pass rush defensive end, which would be Derrick Harvey, who might be better value than a linebacker, though they could take Keith Rivers, who must be the best linebacker in the draft. With this draft, beyond Long and Gholston who might project to playing there, there really isn’t an absolute standout ‘backer, and the ones there are project both inside and outside, so there might not be anybody who’s a ‘clean fit’ as it were. The Saints at ten won’t take Ryan either, so I think this is either where Rivers goes, or where a second corner goes, with Rodgers-Cromartie still on the board. They could even take a running back, on the basis that Bush is a complimentary player and Deuce McAllister might not have much left. With McAllister out last year, I got the impression they were using Bush in McAllister-type plays, and he just wasn’t effective. This will be a selection where they use of those ten minutes! They’ve signed Jonathan Vilma, they don’t want another Jason David, and they need a guy who can man cover, so Cromartie or Jonathan Stewart, though obviously he’s injured at the moment. I’ll say Cromartie. And at eleven, Buffalo need a corner and a receiver, but I don’t think a receiver goes that early in this draft. They need an end, which could be either Philip Merling or Calais Campbell, but I think the third corner goes here, and that would be Mike Jenkins.
 
Leaving Matt Ryan…
 
…Still on the board! I think realistically he won’t fall that far, but I have to say I’m not a franchise quarterback guy. Who are the franchise quarterbacks in the leaue now who were top picks? Carson Palmer yes, Peyton Manning yes, but then you have Tom Brady, a sixth rounder, Tony Romo, an undrafted free agent… it’s really a fifty-fifty shot, an inexact science.For every Peyton there’s a Ryan Leaf. Look at the famous quarterback draft of 1999 with Donovan McNabb, Akili Smith, Tim Couch, Cade McNown and Culpepper, a lot of flops there. You might see the Jets make a play for Ryan, since Kellen Clemens is in a kind of Brodie Croyle situation – is he really the guy long term? I don’t think so, but you sort of have to give him a chance, and of course you still have Pennington there.
 
What do you think is going to happen with Darren McFadden – will he end up dropping?
 
That’s my guess. If I was the Chiefs, and I had more than three serviceable linemen on my team, I would take him, because Larry Johnson is coming off an injury, he’s old for the number of seasons he’s played in. But they won’t, they’re more likely to take a lineman or Ryan. Herman Edwards wants a power running game, but to have a power running game you have to have a power blocking line. Their line in the past has been more of a finesse line – their guards and center have traditionally been really good at moving, getting out in front of Johnson or Priest Holmes. What I’d probably do now if I was Herm would be move Brian Waters to center, a position he played in NFL Europe. I talked Waters at the Super Bowl and asked him ‘How much time do you have left in the league?’ – because he’s pumped up, he’s playing bigger than his frame really, at about 315 – and he doesn’t like carrying that extra 30 pounds. I think at this stage of his career he’d be more effective at center, and it’d give the Chiefs more flexibility in terms of drafting.
 
Overall it seems like a pretty deep draft at certain positions…
 
It’s a deep draft at tackle, and at cornerback, and at defensive end too, which are three premium positions. How many of those tackles will be able to play left tackle is another question. Jeff Otah, for one, might have to be a right tackle because of his footwork. But you’ve got six tackles that could go in the first round – Jake Long, Clady, Otah, Chris Williams, Gosder Cherilus, and Sam Baker. Not to mention Branden Albert, who could slide over to tackle as well.
 
What about prospects people don’t know – any sleepers for us?
 
That gets harder and harder with more and more coverage of the draft available. Dexter Jackson, the receiver from Appalachian State is getting more attention now. I think he’s better than DeSean Jackson, and he’s about the same build. To me he’s even more explosive and may be a better receiver, more toward the Steve Smith (of Carolina) end of the scale. And Smith is one of the guys I was right on, way back, after I watched him in one of the post season All Star games. I was amazed he dropped to the third round. Jackson has a shot to be drafted higher because of the Devin Hester/Ted Ginn factor, and the premium that teams put on the return game now, and on game breaking plays.
 
Any others?
 
A guy who won’t get drafted who I’m really gonna follow is Ricky Santos, the quarterback from New Hampshire. I think he could make it with a West Coast type of team. He’s small, he’s 6’1”, and played mostly in the shotgun, but his junior year, when David Ball was his receiver, he played really well. He doesn’t have a great arm, but he gets rid of the ball quickly and he’s accurate, so if the right team takes him, he could have a career. Another guy, Casey Hansen from Norfolk State, who’s probably not even on any draft boards, is intriguing. He’s a white guy playing quarterback at a traditionally black college. At worst it’s an interesting story!
 
Has he got the skills?
 
Again the year before, people were saying he was pretty good, but he and Santos both dropped off a little last year, and Hansen hasn’t really shown up in the charts, so he might not get much of a look, though he’s got good size at 6’5” and around 220, and with a good arm. It’s tough to make it from that level, you’re always getting downgraded because of the quality of competition you’re facing. But guys like Phil Simms and Ken O’Brien managed it, it can be done.
 
Ken O’Brien! My all-time favourite player of course…
 
He was a good quarterback! He just played on some bad teams.
 
I can’t tell you how pleased I am to hear you say that! A stirring note to end on, since we’re out of time sadly. Thanks so much for taking time to answer all our questions Mike, it’ s been a pleasure. Did you enjoy the fenghuang claws?
 
They were delicious! There’s still one left actually, do you want it?
 
Umm, no, you have it. Really. Enjoy the draft!
 
And you, thanks!