For those of us who really can't get enough football trivia in the off-season, it's worth noting also that the 'Skins signed Byron Westbrook as an undrafted rookie free agent at cornerback. Byron is Brian Westbrook's younger brother.

It’s not often division rivals do business, especially when it involves a first-round pick.

They traded with them two years ago, f'crying out loud. Jerry Jones and Jeff Lurie apparently have a good relation (they've got similar economic situations, after all).

No one says "man, the Cowboys were stupid there, they helped the Eagles get Trent Cole, and he's been terrorizing them ever since!"

Yeah, it wasn't a first round pick. For that you have to go back a whole ten years, when they traded with them in 1996.

The Redskins never cease to amaze me with one form of abject lunacy or another. I'm not saying that their entire draft or off-season was terrible or anything, but how can Joe Gibbs think that Landry, as fabulous a safety as he is, will help the line garner more 'coverage sacks'? I also question the wisdom of having him play aside Sean Taylor. He was a great player at LSU and I think he's football-savvy enough to be a great free safety but that's a lot of responsibility to dump on a rookie. I'm not a Redskins fan but if I was I would certainly not be enthused about their defense in the upcoming season.

I also think Gibbs is a little confused there, too. The Redskins don't need to upgrade their defensive line. They need a defensive line, period. I'm convinced one of these games the entire Washington defensive line is going to fall apart.

I will say, the "well, the Redskins only needs are depth at OL and on the defensive line." Yeah, only - that's half of the football team, right there.

#3 - I'm more enthusiastic about the offense. For what its worth, Greg Williams was able to wring superb productivity from the 2004 defense, which had many as yet unheralded players on it. Another thing which I think most commentators are missing is that the blitzes in Greg Williams schemes come from the secondary, usually a corner or the strong safety. Hence, the addition of Archuleta last season. Arch was awful because his pass defense skills were atrocious. Landry, hopefully, will be an Arch who can defend the pass.

I will say that the Skins management, while their need assessment is suspect, are pretty good at individually selecting players.

Gattis was drafted to replace ageless wonder Brian Dawkins who, one presumes, will have to retire eventually. I think Bradley will eventually replace Trotter at MLB and Gaither will play the WIL. Why? Because Bradley is 254 and Gaither is 235. Otherwise I don't see why they'd use a third-round pick on a position they are notoriously disinterested in two years in a row.

I am glad to see that the Redskins personnel moves continue to mystify. I'd love to see Joe Gibbs at the grocery store; I'm sure his cart would contain 43 boxes of cinnamon Pop Tarts, three limes, a jar of creamy Jif and a dozen eggs. Then he'd go into the parking lot and overpay to buy meat, milk and bread from other shoppers.

#1:

Nice to see someone giving the Giants competition as the NFL's leading employer of younger brothers (E. Manning, S. Moss, T. Hasselbeck, and, until recently, T. Barber).

As to the Giants' draft more generally, I was rather happy with it. Their first-day picks were all very productive players from major programs who fill important needs. All of their second-day picks were good values, and what Giants' fan wouldn't be excited about having another DeOssie on the team? (Hidden effect of the Randy Moss trade: had NE kept their 4th-rounder, I'm betting that DeOssie would've been pretty high on Little Bill's list.)

I think that the major commentators made a bit too much of the OLT issue. The only guys who would have stepped in and taken Petitgout's place went in the top-5. All the other Ts in this draft were developmental projects, and the Giants already have a developmental OLT in Guy Whimper (a 4th round pick last year). Replacing Petitgout with this draft was always an unrealistic expectation, and the team knew that when they cut him. Yes, it may have been a mistake to cut him in the first place, but that doesn't mean that it's a mistake now to spend the team's high picks elsewhere when the OLTs available aren't any better than the guys they already have.

Oh, and they've already waived Brandon Myles.

Link in my name to a Washington Post article, explaining Landry's potential role in the D.

1:

Brian and Byron? What was Mama Westbrook thinking? Is there a Baron Westbrook out there too?

You guys are brutal towards the Redskins. How about some praise for holding onto all of their 2008 picks! Made me pretty happy.

Another Redskin offseason, and I get to look forward to Pat harping on the OL and DL AGAIN! As if last offseason and last year weren't bad enough. Todd Wade played tackle for 1 game last year (Saints near the end of the season) and held his own... there are internal rumors (take this as PFT level) that some defensive players believe Wade to be tougher to go up against than Jansen was.

Didn't anyone watch their defense in 2004 and 2005? How much pressure was generated from the DL then? Their problem wasn't the DL last year, it was the whole darn defense! From the line all the way back, they were a mess.

I think it's about time the Redskins will have some depth on the OL. Sure it's not veteran depth, but you have to think some young players will step in and be an able reserve. I'm not certain, I'm just saying no on really knows what will happen until the season starts.

Is anyone expecting much from the Giants this year?

Will Gibbs stick with Campbell if he struggles in the first 3-4 games or will he go with Brunell? Ramsey got less than one game before Gibbs made the change a few years ago (of course, Gibbs didn't draft Ramsey).

What happens with the Cowboys in the first post-Parcells year? (Did most of their assistants stay or leave?)

Is their anything that can keep Philly out of the playoffs other than a trade with the Cowboys to reacquire TO? Maybe Andy Reid's kids?

Re 11:
Only Giants fans, at this point. Everyone else has essentially written the team off, and not even due to Tiki Barber's retirement. The loudest criticism is not drafting Joe Staley to replace Luke Petitigout, which is silly. As JasonK said, Staley is the same thing as Guy Whimper: a project. David Diehl would fill in at LT regardless of drafting Staley.

A great deal of Giants fans are growing quietly, cautiously, but incredibly optimistic about the upcoming season. A much easier schedule than last year, a new defensive coordinator to properly utilize our players (press corners should not play zone coverage the majority of the time...), the return of our top three defensive ends from season-ending injuries, etc. The defense took a nose-dive after three defensive ends, two starting linebackers, and two starting cornerbacks succumbed to injury within a three week span. Sure, Arrington and Emmons were trash as starters, but they were still better than any team's third stringer linebackers.

The wildcards are Eli Manning and Brandon Jacobs, and naturally, Jacobs is seen as much closer to a "sure thing" amongst Giants fans than Eli is.

5: Landry will be great as a blitzer and probably fine in coverage. I just think that no safety, no matter how good they are, can compensate for a horrendous defensive line. Also, on top that he's going to have to be the brains of the secondary. A rookie, even a savvy one, having to be responsible both for making correct reads and for lining up Sean Taylor in the right place just sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. On the other hand the Bears, of whom I am a fan, thought it would be a good idea to pick up Archuleta so I don't want to malign anyone else's crazy safety moves too much...

6: Hilarious. It's probably not fair but I can totally picture a senile Gibbs wandering around the parking lot mumbling gibberish to himself with his shopping cart full of overpriced goods.

sorry to doublepost, but...

joe t: I wrote the above comment before reading the article you linked too. I still think that if you have problems at the point of attack, e.g. the line, you should probably fix those 1st as it's better to eliminate mistakes rather than get better mistake-erasers, if that makes any sense. Either way, Landry's a fantastic talent (him and Reggie Nelson were my 2 favorite college football players last season) and I hope it works out for him. Sean Taylor with major coverage responsibilities still sounds awfully scary though.

despite all of our histrionics immediately after the Kolb pick, I think I can speak for most Eagles fans when I say we're now quite optimistic about mr. kolb's future potential.
as far as our initial reactions: you can't blame us. we're emotionally volatile and don't watch much college football. ;)

Also, Gaddis wasn't drafted to replace Lewis. Considine already did that. Gaddis was drafted to replace Brian Dawkins, whose contract runs out at the end of 2008. Note that Considine, also, was drafted in 2005, and had two seasons before Lewis left. Same thing.

Gaddis is already listed as the FS backup. Considine and Mikell are the strong safeties on the team. Considine's put on 10-20 pounds since last year, so he's not 210 anymore. Gaddis would be too light to be an SS (like Considine was too light last year).

Abiamiri undersized? He's 270, and has a frame that can take more weight. Reid and Jim Johnson specifically mentioned that one of the things that attracted them to him was his size.

The additions of Abiamiri and Bradley were specifically done to add size to the defense.

Oh and re: #6, Bradley will play the SAM spot, not the MIKE. He and Gocong will compete in camp, presumably with Gocong winning and Bradley spending his rookie year as a backup.

Gaither is expected to move to MIKE and spell Trotter. I don't like that idea, but that appears to be Reid/Johnson's thinking. I'd rather see them move Spikes inside and leave Gaither at WILL.

That's what I get for not posting that comment right after I wrote it, and waiting an hour.

#13:

I'm less optimistic than many, I guess. I'll add to your "wildcards" surrounding the Giants:

Spaguolo: He may well have schemes that suit the Giants' personnel better, but there will be a learning curve for the players and he's never been a DC before, so it's tough to know what to expect.

Diehl at LT: Yeah, he looked pretty good at LT in the wildcard game, but he was getting lots of RB help. I still think he's vulnerable to speed rushers.

Kiwanuka at LB: Looking good dropping back on some zone-blitzes is a long way from playing heads-up over the TE on every down.

Kevin Gilbride as the offensive play-caller: 'Nuff said.

I think it was an unfair shot to say that the Giants might be looking for a QB in two years, if your going to say that, then anybody might. Joe Staley was not going to step into the starting LT spot so taking a much needed DB ( press cover corner) and WR helps a lot. Especially since Steve Smith is good in the slot, while Plax and Toomer are better on the outside.

Washington not picking up a DE is a problem, but not even being able to identify the problem is a lot bigger concern. Denver identified their need and brought in 3 high profile defensive ends.

Then again, this is the same Deadskins team that didn't have shotgun in the playbook when old man Gibbs came back, and the same Deadskins that leaves its dirty laundry out on the radio. Portis ripped into the team on the John Thompson radio show after last year. Some of those coaches who work together won't even talk.

Speakng about Clinton Portis, he was talking about Mr. Mexico when he said that it was his property and he should be able to do whatever he wants on it, whether it's fighting dogs or whatever. Chris Samuels was heard laughing in the backround. I wonder if the front office thinks those innapropriate comments are funny made by a guy with tendinitous who might not even play next year.

#15 - I agree, and I still think they should've addressed the D-line, but I do think that William's defensive philosophy is that D-lineman are warm bodies who merely engage the O-line while a defensive back or linebacker slips behind the line of scrimmage covertly to apply pass pressure or net a sack. The focus of defensive FA acquisitions has been DBs and LBs, with Andre Carter being the exception. Williams runs a system where you deemphasize the impact of the D-line and rely on corners, safeties, and linebackers.

Re: 18

I was thinking beyond 2007 with the LBs as Gaither-Bradley-Gocong in a few years. I expect Bradley will only contribute on special teams this year unless they hide him IR as they did with Gocong and Bloom. But I just don't think that, over time, Gaither will hold up at MLB. I know he's the heir apparent and he'll replace Trotter in the nickle, but Bradley's extra 20 pounds will help him take the job. One would hope the Eagles learned the risks associated with an undersized MLB from that ill-fated Simoneau (240lbs) experiment.

I also heard a report on the JT show today ( I believe Al Coken) that there was a possibility the Eagles trade Mcnabb before the 07 season. They said that Chicago would jump on that real fast. They said the possibility of Mcnabb gone after next season is more likely, but it is possible he's traded soon. I find it highly unlikely that Mcnabb is traded before next year. I also believe it is unlikely he is gone next year, but maybe management is fed up with his injuries and performance in big games.

I also heard a report on the JT show today ( I believe Al Coken) that there was a possibility the Eagles trade Mcnabb before the 07 season. They said that Chicago would jump on that real fast. They said the possibility of Mcnabb gone after next season is more likely, but it is possible he's traded soon. I find it highly unlikely that Mcnabb is traded before next year. I also believe it is unlikely he is gone next year, but maybe management is fed up with his injuries and performance in big games.

John Thompson is probably having a cow over the McNabb trade rumors.

RE#23: We agree. It's Reid that disagrees. I look at Gaither and see the guy that should be starting at WILL. Reid looks at him and sees our next starter at MIKE. I don't like it any more then you do. As for Bradley, they're calling him things like "the prototype SAM LB." It seems pretty clear that he's not being looked at inside. Spikes, on the other hand, they've said they don't know where he'll play, only that he will. If neither of the SAMs are ready, he might slide out there and let Gaither start at WILL. But he's the heir apparent to Trotter.

RE#24: The McNabb to Chicago thing started out as a work of fiction in the Inquirer. The writer was totally up front that he was making it up, and solely posing it as a hypothetical, and that he had no evidence whatsoever that there was any truth to the idea, but hey, what the heck, lets trade McNabb for Briggs. So, of course, Sports Illustrated ran a blurb on their website which they based on the Inquirer story - only they left out the part that it existed only in the mind of the sportswriter. And that, my friends, is how rumors get started.

Chris, some newspaper nitwit floated that bit of rank speculation a few days ago and I think it's more likely that you'll play QB for the Bears than McNabb. For the record, that terrible, horrible, very bad, no good idea was floating arond before the draft too (then it was McNabb going to Detroit for the #2 pick with the Eagles taking Quinn). You have to understand, nobody wants to write about the Phillies because they're terrible and, inexplicably, one of the favorite local past times is saying horrible things about the third-best QB in football. Put those two things together and you get this kind of nonsense. Pay it no mind.

Sorry to double post, but here are some links. First, the Don McKee article from the Inquirer entitled "A McNabb Trade (in theory)"

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/sports/20070520_Incites___A_McNabb_trade_...

Then, on Sports Illustrated's Fan Nation page (with a link from SI's main NFL page), "Eagles To Trade McNabb To Bears?" with no indication that this is completely made up...

http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/3975

Oh well, if it had been Gil Brandt, the Inquirer wouldn't have gotten credit - it'd be presented as original!

#10: Another Redskin offseason, and I get to look forward to Pat harping on the OL and DL AGAIN! As if last offseason and last year weren’t bad enough.

Wasn't I... y'know... right last year? I mean, Carter disappointed for a while, and Griffin and Salave'a both missed games. Griffin, Wynn, Daniels, and Salave'a are now older than last year, and you have to believe they're not going to get any less likely to get injured.

I don't think I harped on OL depth last year. Others did that. Their DL just scared me. Their OL still scares me a bit, but that's because they've filled out depth with league castoffs rather than draft picks.

Re: 13

Seems to me the expectations with regard to the Giants are largely colored by a lack of confidence in the coaching staff. When things got bad for Coughlin in Jacksonville, it didn't look like he could recover. The general feeling seems to be he's at that stage in NY now. I'm not sure that's true (they did have their share of injuries last year), but that sure seems to be the perception.

One would hope the Eagles learned the risks associated with an undersized MLB from that ill-fated Simoneau (240lbs) experiment.

Of the three starting linebackers from 2004, the one they kept the longest was Simoneau, and they really could've used Simoneau last year (and hey, Simoneau is the starting MLB on an NFL team still). It's entirely possible they would've made the Super Bowl last year had Simoneau still been on the team.

Trotter made that team better when he came in, but I'm not sure that the Eagles struggles in 2004 defensively weren't Nate Wayne and Dhani Jones's fault as well.

re 24&25: Those rumors about McNabb to Chicago are speculation by someone trying to become relevant. It won't happen for many reasons such as McNabb is a proven franchise qb and they won't have one after the trade (we all know how hard those are to find just look at the other 3 teams in the division), salary cap, Briggs is not sufficient value in return, etc.

#28 - couldn't have said it better myself. Nothing's worse in the Philly sports media than that long, dry period between the end of the football season and the start of training camp...the Sixers, Phillies and Flyers are generally so uninspiring that our local folks would rather make up rumors regarding a McNabb trade than report on what's actually going on.

Pat,
The funny thing is I wish they had drafted a DE because it would make you harp on it a little less.

For a team that had a bad defense all around last year, I still can't say that Landry was a poor choice, especially if some believed he was the best defensive player available.

I'm just saying it wasn't their D-line that played like a sack of doodoo.

I have no idea what to expect from the NFL year-year due to the variability of players and coaches year-in year-out, player injuries, and QB variability.

I just hope Washington has a better preseason than last year.

I still want to know why people are optimistic about the Giants new DC. People do realize that linebacker has been the Eagles defense weak spot since 2002, right (Spags started as LB coach in 2004)? And that part of the problem has been the insane idea of "Let's put Dhani Jones at SAM, rather than WILL where he spent most of his career" as well as a string of failed WILL linebackers who were never able to hold up through a full season.

The guy was the poster child for "let's put linebackers in spots where they don't really fit" in Philly.

#32 - Simineau is a blown up safety. I like the guy - he tries really hard. Great motor. But he's a weakside linebacker, and a replacement-level one at that. He's a good guy to have on special teams, and from all accounts a good locker room guy, but in Philly's system, he simply can't play the middle. New Orleans's middle works like Chicagos - to enormous two-gap DTs who plug the middle and allow Urlacher to roam. A MLB in New Orleans, like Chicago, doesn't have to fend off blocks. In Philly, however, our DTs play a one-gap system. When we're getting production from them, they're shooting the gap, penetrating into the backfield, and causing disruptions behind the line of scrimmage. The MLB in this system needs to be able to shed blocks. Simineau simply doesn't have the size to do that. His performance in one system doesn't project to comparable performance in another.

Thats why I said something about Mcnabb to Chicago. I thought it was common knowledge that it was BS. Then a pretty good radio show goes out and reports it today. As Dean alludes to, maybe in two weeks Gil Brant will have some breaking news.

I harped on the Redskins D-Line and O-line last year. 4/5 starting offensive lineman were coming back from surgery. That is not something that lets the GM sleep well at night. The O-Line was good and healthy for the Skins last year, but maybe this year they are "due". I'd say the Skins got rather "lucky" with their line being healthy last year. If that season was played out 10 times, they couldn't have hopeded for better health on their O-Line, the 5 starters played almost the entire season together despite their past severe injuries.

The D-Line was a joke, I wrote about it, other people wrote about it, and they stunk as advertised. I understand Williams likes to blitz yadda yadda yadda, but when ESPN was picking the Redskins to go to the super bowl last year, I had them finishing 4th in the NFC east.

Remember, the Skins had no pass rush, didn't force turnovers and were just plain bad.

I think the speculation that the Giants may be looking for a new QB in 2 years is less a result of Eli being a bad QB than a QB who wasn't able to live up to outsized media expectations (i.e., he's not Peyton) and the lopsided traded his team made to get him. Like Carr and the Texans, a change of scenery may have good results, or at least allow a more accurate perception of the player's actual strengths and flaws (which may or may not include apparently psychological damage).

#10: When "we didn't stab our future selves in the back" is the highlight of your draft, you have problems. I know - I'm a Lions fan.

#21: You're. Your.

#26: If by "John Thompson" you mean "Rush Limbaugh", then yes.

For a team that had a bad defense all around last year, I still can’t say that Landry was a poor choice, especially if some believed he was the best defensive player available.

I don't think Landry was a bad choice. I think anyone at that spot was a bad choice. They had to have been able to trade down, somehow. Any way they could.

I also don't want to imagine the pain when Rogers, Taylor, and Landry all start coming up to the end of their contracts in a few years. The Redskins will have the most expensive offensive line in the league next year, and probably the most expensive secondary in the league in four years.

Besides, if I really had to criticise one pick, it'd be the Jordan Palmer pick. What the hell.

#39: Yes, but how do you do that? The Giants have the same problem that's plaguing the Knicks (no, not Isaiah): if you draft a guy with a high pick, or sign a high-priced free agent, as you said, the poor guy immediately faces such outsized expectations that there's no way he can live up to them.

It seems like the only way they have a chance of getting a confident starting QB is to grab a guy who has no expectations coming in, like a Jake Delhomme, or to stick with a guy (Eli?) who has already weathered the storm and is now popularly considered a disappointment, so can finally exceed his media expectations. It was before my time, but I believe Phil Simms took this route.

When we’re getting production from them, they’re shooting the gap, penetrating into the backfield, and causing disruptions behind the line of scrimmage.

On running downs. On passing downs, they're in coverage, and Simoneau was miles better in coverage than Trotter was, just like Dhani. And, like I said, my God, he would've been useful last year. Barber was good in coverage, but never healthy.

As much as people want to think that Philly getting run on a ton last year was the problem, it wasn't. It was nickel. Which is why Gaither at MLB for a year wouldn't thrill me, but it wouldn't kill them, either. We'd give up a few more rushing yards, but a whole lot less 3rd and longs.

The situation we have now is pretty ideal, though.

#36:

Many Giants fans like Spagnuolo because they view him as an empty vessel into which they project their hopes and their hatred of Tim Lewis. They're not looking at his past much more than to note that he's a "Jim Johnson protege."

And I read the comment on the Giants needing a QB in 2 years as a comment on their LT situation rather than on Eli. (e.g., "with the blocking they have now, they'll get him killed")

#43 I think (at least, I HOPE) the plan is to take Trotter out on passing downs in exchange for a 5th DB. Put a SAM LB over the TE, Will James over the 3rd receiver in place of Trotter, and let Gaither play the nickle LB spot that Barber was supposed to play last year. I wouldn't gripe too loudly if Spikes played that role. Come to think of it, he'd be better against the draw play, so if he's got the range, that's be a good fit. Even Matt McCoy (if they don't cut his sorry @$$!) would be better in that spot then Trotter.

#36... Pat, that is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. So you're going to blame the linebackers coach, NOT the highly paid/regarded head coach, not the widely respected defensive coordinator, but the LB coach for where guys are playing? Maybe the third level assistant in Philly has more power than anywhere else or you're completely overstating his power/role.

I agree with others that LT WAS NOT the biggest need on the Giants. CB was and they addressed that. The cheap shot at the QB was unnecessary. The combination of people thinking the team isn't good, plus the thought that the QB stinks makes me wonder how they are one of 5 teams to makes the playoffs 2 years in a row. I think Diehl will be fine at LT, although he will continue to commit 5,000 penalties. They ran for 400 yards in his 2 starts.

The Giants' season will be based on 2 questions... first, can the QB finally play with a level of consistency not just week to week, but game to game and drive to drive. I think that's been his biggest problem. With Tiki gone, the Giants will need him to play consistently well in most games and sometimes win a game almost by himself. The second question is whether the problem with the back 7 on defense was scheme or players? While I think it was mostly the scheme (what defense is being played where no one is covering anyone at all), some players need to pick it up, especially the safeties. While Brandon Jacobs is no sure thing, I'm more confident in him than the previous 2 questions.

Finally, most of the team hates the coach, but I don't think that matters. They still played their asses off in the playoff game and they hated the coach. I think Coughlin is gone even if they make the playoffs again.

#6:

Cinnamon Pop Tarts most delicious of all prepackaged pastries. Creamy Jif speaks the Truth and doesn't need to kiss butt of FO. Redskins on their way to Phoenix in 08. Bet on it!

RE: 27

Yeah, well, this team isn't known for its deft handling of the linebacker position, so I'm not going to take anything they say about those jobs at face value.

Pat, I'd argue the Eagles are iffy in the nickle, in part, because of Johnson's penchant for blitzing on 3rd-and-long, leaving those elfin CBs with no help (remember how 2nd-and-30 turned into a first down then a TD for the Giants?). Trot is a (very good) two-down LB and asking him to cover downfield is just poor strategy. And, considering how the Eagles got steamrolled by the Saints, suggesting they might have gone to the Super Bowl had Simoneau been on the the team is possibly the craziest thing you've ever said. And I'm including that time when you got ahold of that bad acid and told everybody you were Jesus Christ , then jumped off the roof because you thought you could fly.

#46 - maybe I can rephrase Pat's point. What did Steve Spagnulo do in Philadelphia to warrant a promotion from position coach to coordinator, and why is his addition reason for optimism in New York?

#45: Yes, I think 5 DBs is called a "nickel" defense. Might have something to do with 5 being the value of a nickel or something. Okay, that was smartass.

When you switch to nickel, you usually take out the LB who's worst in coverage. That's usually the SAM, as he's usually the largest in size, but more frequently nowadays it's the MIKE (athletic pass catching TEs and all that).

When you've got a "nickel LB" like the Eagles had last year, that means you're pulling out two linebackers - usually to put in a second WILL-type (range/speed more than size). In this case it'd be Trotter and Gocong pulled out for Gaither (or McCoy).

So you’re going to blame the linebackers coach, NOT the highly paid/regarded head coach, not the widely respected defensive coordinator, but the LB coach for where guys are playing? Maybe the third level assistant in Philly has more power than anywhere else or you’re completely overstating his power/role.

#49 phrased it well: if you're going to take away all the responsibility from Spags, what did he do to deserve a promotion?

I don't think I'm overstating his role. He couldn't get McCoy coached well enough to play at all his rookie year, and he hadn't trained well enough to hold up his second year. Dhani never transitioned from WILL to SAM well, either. At the very least, I think those are valid things to criticize him for.

And, considering how the Eagles got steamrolled by the Saints, suggesting they might have gone to the Super Bowl had Simoneau been on the the team is possibly the craziest thing you’ve ever said.

They lost by 3 freaking points! It is utterly and completely impossible to suggest they got steamrolled when they lost by less than a touchdown!

As for winning with Simoneau on the team? I'll stand by that. Barber got hurt at the end of the half, and the Eagles only forced one punt in the second half, and struggled worse than I've ever seen a team struggle before on X-and-long downs.

I don't buy the blitzing arguments. The problems on those downs were coverage issues in the short field.

46- Agreed. If you watch Giants football you knew that something HAD to be done about the back 7. I also didn't appreciate the cheap shot on Eli. Eli has thrown 48 TD passes in his first two full seasons as the starter and his team made the playoffs both years. Not only that, but they won the division in his first year ( they weren't supposed to) and they made the playoffs despite that brutal schedule and those injuries last year. How often to divisions send 3 playoff teams?

What if next year Eli completes 60%, throws for 3500 yards, 28 TD, 14 INT? Then what happens? Those are pretty good ( although not amazing) numbers for a quarterback. I'd put my money on the media still bashing the guy, and trying to run coughlin out of town unless they go deep into the playoffs. Joe Buck must have a personel vendetta against Eli.

#52

Yes, and the reason they lost is because they gave up 240+ rushing yards and, on the final Saints drive when everyone in the Western hemisphere knew the Saints were going to ram the ball down the Eagles' throats, they couldn't stop the run. This, I hasten to remind you, is the same game where Duece McAllister scored after driving the entire front seven into the endzone from about the 5-yardline. Blown out? No. Steamrolled? Hell yes.

#52... I think that the past season made Giants' fans just sick of Tim Lewis. There were so many times in which the back 7 players looked completely clueless on defense. I think you can accept a player being beaten one on one, but not covering anyone and looking lost is unacceptable. Plus, many of us are hoping the aggressive style we saw in Philly can translate to these players. I also don't think you can always blame coaches for the failures of players to get things done. Matt McCoy won't be starting this season either... is that Spags fault? Dhani Jones has always been an average player. Outside of the QB and OL coaches, I'm not sure how much blame can be placed on position coaches.

"Eli has thrown 48 TD passes in his first two full seasons as the starter"

And 35 picks. As opposed to Roethlisburger (34 TDs, 20picks in 26 games, extrapolates to 42TD,24picks in 32), and Rivers, who is on pace for 44 tds, 18int in his first 2 seasons as a starter. Both of them were drafted AFTER Eli.

I like Eli, but hes by no means a stud.

37, Dean: Chicago don't play a two gap system and their DTs are 290-300 lbs. They used to play with Ted Washington and Keith Traylor protecting Urlacher but they haven't for three years now. I agree with you about the system that Philly plays though.

As regards Simoneau: If you're saying that the Eagles wouldn't have won the NO game even with him, remember that he plays for the Saints now! So you're saying that the Eagles would have a better coverage linebacker and New Orleans would lose their starting MLB. That seems like it could tip a three-point game.

Re 31:
You're correct in that assessment in a general sense, although I do not fall into that category. Up until around mid-January, the blame lay squarely on Tom Coughlin's shoulders. With that came the doomsday predictions of a 4-12 season, a top 5 draft pick, etc. Things have mellowed out at the popular Giants websites. Most of the blame, pessimism, and the like is aimed towards the assistant coaches - and rightfully so.

John Hufnagel was terrible. Tim Lewis was even worse. A lot of Giants fans want to see the emergence of an Air Coryell type offense, or something similar to Cincinnati today, as they are at their best when Rudi pounds the ball, opening up the field for Palmer to feast on the back seven. Kevin Killdrive, in my opinion, is the single biggest reason for pessimism for the upcoming season.

I don't trust him one bit with this offense, which has plenty of talent at all the positions, but is in serious need of consistency and sound strategy. I foresee Giants fans booing when Eli and Co. go 3-and-out midway in the 4th quarter one game with a 3 point lead, giving the ball back to the opponent, because Killdrive called three passes. Meanwhile, Jacobs sits on the bench with his hilarious stat lines of 13 carries for 97 yards, twiddling his thumbs and praying that he will touch the ball sometime in this second half.

#48: "And, considering how the Eagles got steamrolled by the Saints, suggesting they might have gone to the Super Bowl had Simoneau been on the the team is possibly the craziest thing you’ve ever said."

Steamrolled?! The Saints won 27-24, that's no steamrolling. That's a narrow victory, one that easily could have gone the other way with a slightly better performance by the Eagles. New Orleans had to overcome an 8 point deficit in the third quarter, so they hardly dominated the Eagles. With a better defense, there's no reason to think the Eagles couldn't have beaten the Saints. And they had a higher DVOA than Chicago, so it wouldn't be all that unlikely for them to win that game. I don't think it was a ridiculous statement at all.

I didn't say "blown out." I said "steamrolled" and I explained why above. And it is absolutely ridiculous to think Simoneau would have made any difference for the Eagles in that game.

Yes, and the reason they lost is because they gave up 240+ rushing yards and, on the final Saints drive when everyone in the Western hemisphere knew the Saints were going to ram the ball down the Eagles’ throats, they couldn’t stop the run.

So, the Saints scored the winning points on that drive, then?

Wait, what? They turned the ball over, gave the ball back to the offense in great field position, only to see them go 3-and-out, and put the defense in a position "guys, no pressure, but, uh, we need you to stop these guys on this series. So, yes, your entire performance this game is going to be judged by three downs, because if the Saints get one first down, game's over."

In fact, on the drive before that, they sacked Brees on first down, held Bush in a short pass to no gain, and forced an incomplete, giving Philly's offense the ball back with a chance to go ahead with most of the quarter left.

Their failures in nickel were a bigger deal that game, in my mind. They led to points. The failures in the running game just look more dramatic.

And it is absolutely ridiculous to think Simoneau would have made any difference for the Eagles in that game.

So you're saying you don't think it would've made any difference if Barber hadn't gotten hurt, then.

Alex:
The Eagles had little in the way of a sustained offense in that playoff game. A 75 yard TD pass to Donte Stallworth and a 62 yard touchdown run by Brian Westbrook accounted for over 50% of their points and, more importantly, 40% of their total offense yards.

That game was a lot worse than the final score indicated, as those two plays definitely made the score closer than the level of play was. It took lightning striking twice for the game to be so tight.

#61: "I didn’t say “blown out.� I said “steamrolled� and I explained why above."

When the difference between "steamrolling" a team and "narrowly losing" to that team is a mere three points, which the Eagles could've scored on their final drive of the game, when their defense got them the ball at their 44 yard line with over 3 minutes left in the game, "steamrolling" doesn't mean much. It certainly doesn't imply that the Eagles couldn't have won that game if a few things had gone differently.

#64: "That game was a lot worse than the final score indicated, as those two plays definitely made the score closer than the level of play was. It took lightning striking twice for the game to be so tight."

And yet, both of those plays did happen, and the score was very close at the end, so there's no reason to suspect that if the Eagles had performed better defensively, they might have won the game, even if it required those two lucky plays. Lucky plays do occasionally happen, just ask the Patriots. Implying that an Eagles win would've required a few lucky plays doesn't mean that it definitely would not have happened.

And btw, I don't know if I would say that Donte Stallworth burning Fred Thomas for a TD is lucky, considering nearly every other receiver he's covered has burned him this season. And even if you take out the 62 yard run, Westbrook still averaged 4.5 ypc, so I wouldn't say the Saints shut him down completely, either.

I think Harris's point is that the Eagles' defense got steamrolled, which I think is fair, and that one more linebacker was unlikely to change that. Especially one where he would weaken the run defense, which the was already terrible that game.

I personally want to thank the 'Skins for pissing off the Falcons. Everybody knows they wanted Landry. I also want to thank the Lions for getting Johnson, and not letting Gruden part ways with Michael Clayton.

Re: 53 see 50

Lost in the discussion of the Saints/Eagles playoff game is that McAllister wouldn't have been in a position to kill the Eagles if the pass defense had been better. The go-ahead TD, the one on which he dragged several defenders into the endzone, was set up by a drive in which Brees completed something like four consecutive 10+ yard passes to Billy Miller (!), who was being covered by Trotter, who can't cover TE's anymore. If Barber was still in the game, or the Eagles had had Simoneau, those completions might not have happened and the go-ahead TD might not have been scored. Poor run defense played a role in the outcome of that game, but I think its role is being overstated by 90%+ of the commentariat because two of the most dramatic, memorable sequences of the game - the McAllister TD and the 1st down conversion at the end - involved running plays. But that doesn't make run defense solely or even primarily responsible for the Eagles' defeat. Keep in mind, the Saints didn't stop Westbrook either.

Lost in the discussion of the Saints/Eagles playoff game is that McAllister wouldn’t have been in a position to kill the Eagles if the pass defense had been better.

That's exactly my point.

It wasn't McAllister who killed the Eagles. It's crazy to say "the Eagles defense should've been able to prevent the Saints from getting a single first down." That's what we're talking about - one - not two, three - one. One of the best offenses in football. An average defense can't do that. A good defense might not be able to do that.

What they should've been able to do is prevent them from getting 15 yards on 1st and 20, 29 yards on 2nd and 10, 15 yards on 2nd and 15, 21 yards on 2nd and 11, a Dhani freaking Jones penalty on 2nd and 20 giving them a first down, and 13 yards on 3rd and 9.

That, they should've been able to do. And would've been able to do. If they had a nickel LB. Which they didn't, because their two best cover LBs were both injured.

If Barber was still in the game, or the Eagles had had Simoneau, those completions might not have happened and the go-ahead TD might not have been scored.

Absolutely, without a doubt. Philly that game had two linebackers who could cover and were healthy. That's enough for a nickel defense. One got injured at the end of the half. They then got stuck in a situation where they had to leave Trotter in.

#67: "I think Harris’s point is that the Eagles’ defense got steamrolled, which I think is fair, and that one more linebacker was unlikely to change that."

What exactly does "steamrolled" mean? If that's just a fancy way of saying their run defense sucked, then sure, they got steamrolled. But why would that prevent them from winning?

To put it another way:

Would you still say they got steamrolled if, instead of punting on the last Eagles drive, Reid had called a pass, and Garcia had thrown for a first down (which he had just done, before it was wiped out by a penalty), and then the Eagles offense moved down the field and scored a game-winning touchdown? You wouldn't have to change the Eagles defense a bit, and yet they would've won. So I don't see how being "steamrolled" was what kept them from winning. The defense played well enough for 57 minutes that the offense was in a position to win the game at the end. It's not their fault the offense went three-and-out after taking over at their 44 yard line.

The redskins might be looking for a new running back in a year or two. Clinton Portis just about screamed 'investigate me' in his interview today. He didn't do VIck any favors. The NFL has to do something about this dog-fighting attitude. 'I'm from Alabama' doesn't cut it as an excuse. I'm from the Appalachian Mountains of NC and cruelty to dogs is too redneck to the self-professed rednecks I know. It's not a good ol boy thing. Its a sickness.

morganga,

You need less ganja. Clinton Portis is a goofy guy who says odd things. In this case, he said something clueless and offensive. That does not mean he should be investigated for dogfighting.

Also, Portis could retire tomorrow and the Skins would be fine with Betts and Cartright, according to DPAR and DVOA.

#74: "Also, Portis could retire tomorrow and the Skins would be fine with Betts and Cartright, according to DPAR and DVOA."

Maybe, but then again, the same could be said of Shaun Alexander retiring and leaving the Seahawks with Maurice Morris and Mack Strong running the ball. Still, I don't think anyone would expect the Seahawks to be as good running the ball if Shaun Alexander retired.

Re 72:

They got steamrolled, as in the Saints could do pretty much what they wanted. They converted 3rd and long whenever they needed, and ran the ball when they needed too. They only forced the Saints the punt the ball 3 times. Going into the 4th quarter, the every Saints drive had gone at least 20 yards.

That Saints game sure does seem to stick out a lot in people's minds, which surprises me, given that it was a 3 point loss, on the road, on a short week, against a really good team that had had a bye the previous week.

#76: "They got steamrolled, as in the Saints could do pretty much what they wanted...They only forced the Saints the punt the ball 3 times. Going into the 4th quarter, the every Saints drive had gone at least 20 yards."

Problem is, the Saints didn't really do everything they wanted to, it just looks that way because they won. It's not that they didn't have a good game, but they did struggle at times.

Like the first drive of the game, when they only gained 12 yards (not 20+), and then had to punt. I wouldn't exactly say that they wanted to do that. Or the last drive of the first half (when the Eagles still had a narrow lead), which went as follows:

-7 yard pass to Billy Miller
-Sack for loss of 7 yards
-Sack for loss of 3 yards
-15 yard run by their punter on a trick play when the Eagles defense was off the field
-8 yard pass to Reggie Bush
-incompletion
-incompletion, end of half

I don't think they really wanted that to happen, either. And I am unimpressed by a drive in which their punter gained more yards in one play than their entire offense did in six plays.

Or the first drive of the fourth quarter, with 11 minutes left and the Saints holding onto a 3 point lead:

-Sack for loss of 6 yards
-pass to Reggie Bush for no gain
-incompletion
-punt

I don't think they wanted to go three and out and give the Eagles the ball back when the game's outcome was still very much in doubt. Remember, the Eagles had scored 24 points in their 8 drives up to this point, so it's not like the Saints could really be sure that their defense wouldn't give up 3 more in the 9 or so minutes left in the game.

"They converted 3rd and long whenever they needed, and ran the ball when they needed too."

The problem with saying they did something whenever they needed to is that it only applies because the outcome of the game was positive for them. If they had lost, then those same drives where they didn't need to convert on 3rd and long, or run effectively, all of sudden become drives where they did need to do those things.

If the Eagles offense had scored a TD on their final drive instead of punting, you'd be hard pressed to find a player on that Saints offense who'd claim that they did everything they needed to do. And yet you wouldn't have to change a single thing about the offense's performance. That makes me feel the claim that the Saints offense "steamrolled" the Philadelphia defense is highly exaggerated.

They played very well. In this case, it was enough to win. But there was no guarantee at any point until the last minute of the game that they wouldn't end up regretting some of the imcompletions, failed drives, etc. that are now viewed as unimportant.

Chris,

Every time that Eli Manning is mentioned you bring up the whole spiel about him throwing 48 touchdowns combined in his second and third years as a starter. Throwing 48 touchdowns in and of itself doesn't mean a thing. As with any cumulative statistic, you have to provide context for it. Sure, he's thrown 48 touchdowns, but also 35 picks (not a very good TD-to-INT ratio). Moreover, those 48 touchdown passes were out of almost 1100 passes.

If you really want something impressive in that light, look at Carson Palmer's 60 touchdowns in years two and three despite throwing 50 fewer passes. Many other guys are the same way, too, at least many of the guys who would be considered "star" quarterbacks.

I'm not trying to overly criticize Eli, mind you, I actually think he's pretty good. But, that said, you can't just say, "Well, he threw a lot of touchdown passes the past couple of years, so he's great or in position to be great in the coming years." There's just far more too it than citing a single raw number.

78: "The problem with saying they did something whenever they needed to is that it only applies because the outcome of the game was positive for them. If they had lost, then those same drives where they didn’t need to convert on 3rd and long, or run effectively, all of sudden become drives where they did need to do those things."

Every sports pundit should be forced to read that paragraph, and some should face the threat of having it tattooed upon them.

Hey, that's right, the Cowboys have taken OLBs in the first round three years in a row. Add that to the fact that they have Ellis who, at least to me, looked pretty decent moving to OLB until he got injured. So if they draft another OLB in the first next year, does Jerry Jones become a Millen-esque figure of fun? Oh, wait.

That's all well and good, what I want to know is who would have won the What-If-Bowl of 2007 between the Eagles and the Seahawks in Philly? (I think the Seahawks, with all the injuries, would have fallen off their average and defeated the Eagles 35-0) (j/k)

#77: "That Saints game sure does seem to stick out a lot in people’s minds, which surprises me, given that it was a 3 point loss, on the road, on a short week, against a really good team that had had a bye the previous week."

That's because it was the perfect microcosm of the life of Philadelphia sports fans:

The promising start, the exciting highlights, the uniquely talented players, the building anticipation, pride in our team, the belief that today, yes, this season, we could finally get a championship, we could win!

Then, finally, the inevitable crash-and-burn, with all the bitter pain, the shock jarring our senses...it seemed so close a moment ago. But Billy Penn wouldn't let it go, statues must really know how to hold a grudge.

Slowly, we fall back down from the cloudy skies our expectations had pulled us up to, and say to each other: "Well, there's always next year. Damn, the Phillies suck!"

-------------

p.s.: That woman with the "F--- da Eagles" T-shirt also annoyed me. Really, it was more the fact that they didn't think to switch to another camera or go to a commercial or something, no we'll just show this obscene Eagles-hating T-shirt for, oh, 5 minutes or so, while a bunch of kids are probably watching the game with their families.

p.p.s.: Just for the record, Harris (#48) totally started it. Steamrolled my eye. ;)

The Portis interview is at least 3 days old... I have no idea why the story is just breaking now (saw it on front page of espn.com). In fact, the AP article really stretched to include Samuels as well.

Portis released a statement last night. The following is a statement from Redskins running back Clinton Portis regarding recent comments he made to a Norfolk, VA television station:
"In the recent interview I gave concerning dog fighting, I want to make it clear I do not take part in dog fighting or condone dog fighting in any manner."

83: I'm as masochistic a Philly fan as any, but I saw this one differently. I completely gave up on the season the moment McNabb went down, as did most people... I'd say a division title and a playoff game win, under the circumstances, qualifies as downright charmed. Did Jeff Garcia really have you thinking Super Bowl?

...oh wait, I think I'm supposed to be talking about the draft...

#85: "I’d say a division title and a playoff game win, under the circumstances, qualifies as downright charmed. Did Jeff Garcia really have you thinking Super Bowl?"

Oh, I agree, it was great, and no, I didn't think we'd get a Super Bowl with Garcia. It was more of a metaphor, because once the game started, it seemed possible that we could win it, and things got exciting, for me anyway. I didn't expect a Super Bowl, but I started to expect an NFCC game appearance. That's what I was trying to get at.

Where's the MMQB extra point thread?

Alex, you seem to think that "won" means the same thing as "played well." Did the Bears offense play well against the Cardinals? Did the Colts defense play well against the Patiots in the AFCC? Considering that they allowed 34 points, I'll say no. It is entirely possible to win simply by sucking less than your opponent, but that is not the same thing as "playing well" or even playing well enough to win.

The Colts defense did not allow 34 points in the playoffs. They allowed 27. Unless members of the Colts defense suddenly started playing offense, there's no way they could've prevented 7 of those points.