GREEN BAY, Wis. -- Each week, I ask for questions via Twitter with the hashtag #PackersMail and then deliver the answers over the weekend. This week, perhaps the biggest issue for the Green Bay Packers (5-2) is how they will defend tight end Jimmy Graham on Sunday night against the New Orleans Saints (2-4). We'll discuss that and some contract issues in this week's edition of the mailbag:

@RobDemovsky will we see Clinton-dix try to rough up Graham like the seahawks did last year? #packersmail

— Tim Wilmes (@bigsilly67) October 24, 2014

Demovsky: Packers defensive coordinator Dom Capers used to like matching up Charles Woodson against opposing tight ends, but the approach lately has been to use a variety of players from a variety of positions. Consider that last Sunday, Carolina Panthers tight end Greg Olsen caught passes against linebackers A.J. Hawk (three catches) and Jamari Lattimore (one) and safeties Morgan Burnett (two) and Micah Hyde (two). Cornerback Casey Hayward's interception came when he was in coverage against Olsen. That said, if Burnett doesn't play because of his hamstring injury, then you could see a fair amount of Ha Ha Clinton-Dix on Jimmy Graham. Clinton-Dix has started to show his physical, aggressive style in recent weeks, which is why he has moved into the starting lineup.

@RobDemovsky #packersmailbag will Capers have @DavonHouse mirror JG? His physical play could limit his impact. House should hit JG at LOS.

— Ian McInnis (@IanMcInnis917) October 24, 2014

Demovsky: You might see Davon House on Graham at times, but only when Graham lines up split out wide. The Packers don't use House inside or in the slot; he has been exclusively an outside cover player. But he might be the Packers' most physical cornerback, which could work well against an athletic player like Graham.

@RobDemovsky #PackersMail Did #Packers & TT make a mistake by not getting Cobb's contract extended sooner? Lotta guys need to get paid soon!

— Ben Jacklin (@BenjaminJacklin) October 24, 2014

Demovsky: That's an easy argument to make but consider this: Maybe Randall Cobb wanted to bet on himself and wait to see how the season progressed before accepting a deal. It's the old bird-in-the-hand question. Remember when Cobb said this summer that he hadn't done enough to earn a contract. What he surely meant was that he had not done enough to earn the kind of contract he wants. Perhaps he's done that now.

@RobDemovsky Has Mike Daniels played his way into an offseason extension? #PackersMail

— Dusty Schuett (@djschuett) October 24, 2014

Demovsky: Mike Daniels has quickly become one of those cornerstone defensive players that the Packers will want to lock up long-term. Again, much like Cobb, it depends on how the player views himself as to when he wants to do an extension. Daniels has continued to improve. The better he plays, the more money he's worth. The Packers surely will approach him about an extension at some point if they have not already.

@RobDemovsky if peppers keeps playing like this he'll be back next year but what are the odds we restructure the contract? #PackersMail

— Douglas C. King (@KingDouglasC) October 24, 2014

Demovsky: If he's back next year - and that's still a significant-sized if - it will have to be under a restructuring unless he goes out and has, say, 10 sacks in the second half of the season. Otherwise, it's almost a given the Packers won't pay him the $8.5 million base salary (plus another $1 million in possible bonuses) that he would be owed next season. Even though it was a three-year contract, the structure of it essentially made it a one-year trial. Now, Peppers has been solid and he has given Capers the flexibility to use myriad packages, but you could make a case that Nick Perry has made as many impact plays as Peppers in the first seven games. If Perry can stay healthy, which has always been his bugaboo, then perhaps they won't bring back Peppers.