ESPN NFL

PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful to New York Giants owner John Mara for stopping Sunday afternoon in the Breakers lobby to talk to a few of us about the salary cap penalties against the Washington Redskins and the Dallas Cowboys. He didn't hold back, and as you can see if you scroll through this blog's timeline, we got plenty of good material out of it.

But in the grand scheme of things, when we sit down to talk about the right and the wrong of this whole situation, there's very little right and a whole big pile of wrong, and the defiant stance Mara took Sunday afternoon made that pile much bigger.

The aggrieved parties in this instance are the Redskins and the Cowboys, and they're keeping quiet on the whole thing. Sure, they filed a grievance against the NFL and the NFLPA on Sunday, seeking to get some relief from the combined $46 million in salary cap room they've been docked over the next two offseasons. But they declined several opportunities Sunday to add to the rhetoric.

Stephen Jones, the Cowboys' director of player personnel: "Within the confines of our collective bargaining agreement, we are trying to have a voice and a hearing in terms of our cap situation."

Bruce Allen, the Redskins' general manager: "I have nothing to say on that. We'll let the league speak to it."

Mike Shanahan, the Redskins' head coach: "I'll let the commissioner speak about that."

We tried egging these guys on. I read Jones the quote from Mara in which he said the Redskins and Cowboys were lucky they didn't lose draft picks for this, and all Jones said was, "That's John's opinion. Not my opinion."

But Mara came out guns-a-blazin'. And if there are people out there who believe (as I do) that the NFL has acted with irresponsible, petty arrogance in this case and imposed unjustified penalties against teams that broke no actual rules, Mara's stance isn't likely to change their minds.

There was no salary cap in 2010. This is a fact. Mara repeatedly brushed that aside during questioning Sunday, irritated at the fact's mere existence. "We've had a cap for 29 of the last 30 years," he said more than once, and he explained rather clearly that teams were told, more than once, to watch the way they spent money and structured contracts during the uncapped 2010 season. He basically admitted to what, in any other business, would be collusion and grounds for an antitrust lawsuit. But he bristled at the mention of that word, too, saying, "This has nothing to do with collusion. It has to do with teams attempting to gain a competitive advantage through a loophole in the system. They attempted to take advantage of it knowing full well there would be consequences."

What we know about this case is that the NFL basically engaged in a sanctioned form of collusion in 2010, telling its teams that yeah, there was no cap, but that they needed to act as though there were one because they were sure the cap would come back and it was wrong to use this "loophole" as a means of gaining an advantage against the cap in future years. Mara admitted all of that Sunday, and he did so in a way that strongly indicates he believes himself to be on the correct side of the argument.

But he is not, of course. And in more ways than one, he is very much in the wrong.

Mara is wrong because the only thing of which the Redskins and Cowboys are guilty is failing to honor a shady gentleman's agreement between 32 billionaires who don't want to pay their employees any more than they have to. What the NFL, Mara and the other owners did, effectively imposing a salary cap when none had been agreed to by the other party (i.e., the players) in their collective bargaining agreement, was patently wrong. To punish the teams that didn't go along with the wrong, and to so strenuously defend the punishment as though it were right, is the height of arrogance.

Mara is wrong because, by effectively admitting collusion, he's giving the NFLPA ammunition for a new fight the league does not want. The union had to drop all pending litigation against the league as part of the Brady settlement last year when the lockout ended. That included the collusion charges they filed against the league for the suspicions they had about this kind of 2010 activity. Mara's admission could well qualify as new evidence that could allow the union to file new charges. And because the NFLPA is named in the Redskins' and Cowboys' complaint, it has the option of obtaining discovery on collusion should it wish to pursue action against the league. The union is upset that the league backed it into a corner here, effectively forcing it to agree to the penalties against the Cowboys and Redskins under the threat of a reduction in this year's salary cap, and would love an opening from which to attack on this.

Mara is wrong because he's the chairman of the NFL Management Council, which is the group that imposed these penalties, and he's the owner of a team that plays the Cowboys and Redskins twice each year and competes with them for the same division title. That's not to say Mara did this on purpose to get one over on two division rivals. But one of the first things we're taught in any journalism class is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety -- to steer clear of any activity that could ever allow anyone to accuse us of engaging in a conflict of interest. That is clearly not a concern Mara has in this case, but he should. There's a chance he should have recused himself from this whole thing, and even if he hadn't, he's not doing himself or his excellent reputation any favors by being the aggressive face of the penalties.

What's interesting here is that, when these penalties came down, a lot of people assumed it was the teams at the other end of the spending spectrum who were upset with what the Cowboys and Redskins had done -- traditionally low-spending teams like the Buccaneers and the Jaguars and the Chiefs and the Bills. But what seems clear now is that Mara, the owner of the Giants, was one of the driving forces behind holding the Redskins' and Cowboys' feet to the fire over an issue the league office likely wouldn't have pursued if not for pressure from owners. It makes Mara look petty and small and vindictive, and those aren't words usually associated with him. It makes no sense to me that he's gone to such great lengths to allow people to apply them to him now.

You've waited, speculated, hoped and fretted for months, and today it finally arrived -- the start of NFL free agency. It was a busy and hectic day, as it often is, and it's liable to continue into the wee hours of the morning. But for now, as we creep toward midnight, it seems like a good time to stop and ask each of our division's four teams our favorite free-agency question.

So, how was your day? ...

Washington Redskins?

"Exciting." The Redskins were extremely busy right away, agreeing to deals with wide receivers Pierre Garcon and Josh Morgan and working on another for wide receiver Eddie Royal. The fact that they moved so quickly led to industry-wide cries of "Same old Redskins -- champions of March," because there's no more powerful force in the NFL than conventional wisdom. But an actual close look at what they're doing reveals the kind of smart, long-view plan that Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen began working to execute last offseason.

The old, reckless-spending Redskins would not have been outbid for 29-year-old Vincent Jackson, who got $55.5 million ($26 million guaranteed) from the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. The receivers the Redskins signed will be 26 and 27 years old at the start of the season. And while five years, $42.5 million ($20.5 million guaranteed) is obviously too much for Garcon, who has never been a No. 1 wide receiver, it's what it cost to get him. Shanahan has identified him as a guy who can explode, based on where he is in his career, the way he'll fit in Shanahan's offense and the potential for him to grow along with Robert Griffin III. If Shanahan's wrong, the contract could haunt him. But he's not just throwing money around. Garcon is a guy Shanahan targeted for good, specific reasons. There is a plan here, and it's likely to continue as they work to fill holes on the offensive line and in the secondary in the coming days and weeks.

The Redskins also re-signed Adam Carriker on Tuesday to maintain depth on the defensive line. What Redskins fans would like to see next is a re-signing of linebacker London Fletcher. I believe the Redskins would like that too, but the longer it goes without getting done, the greater the chance the Redskins will lose one of their most valuable defensive players. What's clear is that, in spite of being docked $36 million against the cap for violating some sort of amorphous fake spending limit during the uncapped 2010 season, the Redskins still have plenty of room to work under the cap.

Dallas Cowboys?

"Better than Monday." A day after learning that they'd be docked $10 million against the salary cap over the next two years for the same kinds of bogus violations that nailed the Redskins, the Cowboys set about executing their own plan. They cut Terence Newman and David Buehler and restructured the contracts of Doug Free and Orlando Scandrick -- a combination of moves that bought them about $15.8 million in extra cap room this year. Then, according to Adam Schefter, they brought in free-agent cornerback Brandon Carr, who at this writing seemed likely to sign with Dallas as Newman's replacement as early as Tuesday night. With Cortland Finnegan having signed for five years and $50 million in St. Louis, and Carlos Rogers having re-signed for four years and about $30 million in San Francisco, the market seemed set for Carr, and the Cowboys seemed determined not to let him leave Dallas without a deal.

Schefter also reported that the Cowboys were looking at Kyle Orton, who'd be an excellent veteran backup option for Tony Romo at quarterback. And ESPNDallas.com writes that the Cowboys plan to bring in former Panthers linebacker Dan Connor and former Bears tight end Kellen Davis for visits as well. Connor makes sense because they'll need depth at linebacker and may need more time for Bruce Carter to develop behind a veteran. Davis makes sense as a possible replacement for Martellus Bennett, who's in New York to visit the Giants. So if they get Carr done, they'll have addressed their most glaring need on the first day and are already at work on filling some other important needs. They still need to find offensive line help, and it looks as though they could lose wide receiver Laurent Robinson to the Jaguars or Dolphins, but cornerback was the place for them to start.

New York Giants?

"Productive." The champs began the day by re-signing cornerback Terrell Thomas, which was a priority of theirs, and buying themselves some cap room with the restructuring of the contract of center David Baas. Then they flew Bennett in for a visit, since they need a tight end to replace the two they lost to serious knee injuries in the Super Bowl. Cowboys fans are chuckling at the idea that another team would want Bennett, who earned a reputation as a pass-dropping underachiever during his time in Dallas. But the Giants see a guy who's 6-foot-6, 270 pounds, fast and still just 25 years old. They certainly trust their coaching staff and their quarterback to get the most out of any player, and if they can get him on a reasonable deal, it's certainly worth a shot that he still could transform his remarkable physical talent into reliable on-field production. And if he can't, Jake Ballard and Travis Beckum should be back healthy at the end of the season anyway. It's worth the Giants' time to check on Bennett.

The Giants target guys they like but are otherwise patient, so don't expect to hear much about them and Mario Manningham, Aaron Ross or Jonathan Goff anytime soon. They'll let those guys see what they can get on the market, and if they come back disappointed and willing to sign for the Giants' numbers, they could return. If not, the Giants feel confident they can find replacements.

Philadelphia Eagles?

Wait. That was today? Yeah, the Eagles had a quiet day. They extended Todd Herremans' contract and, as Sal Paolantonio reported, were working on an extension for Trent Cole as well. Part of the reason for the quiet is that the Eagles did a lot of work in free agency last year and expect those players to play better in 2012. Part of the reason is that the position at which they need the most help is linebacker, and the linebacker market hasn't really started humming yet. I still think Fletcher makes sense for them on a number of levels, and I wonder if he's a guy they're quietly targeting to steal away from Washington. We'll see. They won't go as nuts as they did last year, but the Eagles won't stay silent for long.

On Monday, the news broke that the Washington Redskins would lose $36 million in cap space and the Dallas Cowboys $10 million over the next two seasons for spending too much during the "uncapped" 2010 season. The NFL issued a statement later in the day saying that "the parties to the CBA agreed to adjustments to team salary for the 2012 and 2013 seasons."

But the Cowboys and Redskins, who are without a doubt "parties to the CBA" issued statements Monday night that indicate they don't know what the league is talking about.

"The Washington Redskins have received no written documentation from the NFL concerning adjustments to the team salary cap in 2012 as reported in various media outlets," Redskins general manager Bruce Allen said in a statement released by the team. "Every contract entered into by the club during the applicable periods complied with the 2010 and 2011 collective bargaining agreements and, in fact, were approved by the NFL commissioner’s office. We look forward to free agency, the draft and the coming football season."

"The Dallas Cowboys were in compliance with all league salary cap rules during the uncapped year," a Cowboys spokesman said. "We look forward to the start of the free agency period where our commitment to improving our team remains unchanged."

I do not know why the teams would issue statements denying knowledge of the reported sanctions if they were, in fact, in agreement with the decision as the NFL would lead us to believe. If I ran the Redskins or Cowboys and a story like that broke, I imagine I'd call the league and ask what was up with that. I'd do it before releasing a statement denying any knowledge of the reported punishments. So I don't know why these teams would release these statements, since it's obvious to all of us that they must by now have been in contact with the league about this story.

I know that the NFLPA and the other 30 teams are in agreement about the settlement, but the Redskins' and Cowboys' statements indicate that perhaps they intend to kick about this a little bit. Stay tuned.

I get it, Washington Redskins fans. You've been hurt. You've been burned too many times by big March headlines you thought would bring lasting happiness but instead brought heartache, and now it's difficult for you to trust. You don't want to be hurt again.

How else to explain the horrified reaction by a quarterback-starved fan base to the idea of signing Peyton Manning? Judging by the reactions from the folks in our comments section all the way up to the mayor of Washington, D.C., you'd think we were talking about handing the starting quarterback's job to Dan Snyder's teenage nephew. This is what Mayor Vincent Gray had to say on the topic to a D.C. television station last week:

"You know, I think it depends on what role he would play, Bruce," Gray said. "But I really think the Redskins need a quarterback that they can build with for the future. You know, Andrew Luck is probably going to go to the Colts, but there's Robert Griffin III, and there's a couple other promising quarterbacks that are out there. We've kind of been down this pathway with quarterbacks who've been great but maybe are in the back end of their career, and even if he comes in and plays a year or two, where do we go from there?"

Well, jeez, Mr. Mayor. At that point, you go with the guy you drafted in 2013 because you weren't able to trade up and get Griffin in 2012. Or you go with a young guy you picked later in that draft who's been apprenticing for a year or two under Peyton Manning, for goodness' sake. What Gray and many other Redskins fans seem to be missing here is that Mike Shanahan can't just go to the "franchise quarterback" aisle at the Wegman's down the road from the team's Ashburn, Va., training facility and pick one. Only one team's going to get Griffin, and if the Redskins aren't that team, they need to have a good Plan B. If Manning is fully healthy and shows he can throw the ball the way he was throwing it two years ago before his neck injury, he's the greatest Plan B in alphabetically themed planning history.

Redskins fans, the mayor included, are looking at this whole thing through the disappointing prism of free-agent signing periods past. I'm hearing names such as Bruce Smith, Deion Sanders, Albert Haynesworth and yeah, Donovan McNabb -- a list of big-name, star players the Redskins brought in to great fanfare and who flopped for one reason or another. Because of this, the chorus moans, Manning isn't the way to go. The Redskins have done the big-name/big-contract thing before and it just never works out. They need to stop doing business this way.

Well, guess what? They kind of already have. Yeah, McNabb was a mistake -- a flyer Shanahan took thinking he could re-light a spark that had gone out in Philadelphia and maybe sneak into the playoffs in his first year in Washington. He acknowledges it was a risk that didn't work out. But (a) Manning is not McNabb, who was no longer driven to excel by the time the Redskins got him and (b) the McNabb acquisition is an outlier among the moves Shanahan and Bruce Allen have made since taking over personnel decisions two years ago. Everything else they've done in the draft and free agency has been focused, sober and competent, and they deserve the benefit of the doubt, even from Redskins fans scarred by the mistakes of past administrations.

Snyder doesn't pull these strings anymore. Part of the agreement Shanahan signed when he took the job was that Snyder would let him build the team, as he puts it, "the right way." Last year's draft was an exercise in patience, as Shanahan refused to reach for quarterbacks he didn't think were the long-term answer simply because he had a need at that position. He traded back, trying to build depth, and picked up key future pieces such as Ryan Kerrigan, Roy Helu, Evan Royster, Jarvis Jenkins and Dejon Gomes. He has eight picks this year and will have to decide how many of them he's willing to sacrifice if he wants to move up to draft Griffin. Shanahan knows how many needs his team has, so he's not going to make that decision lightly.

In the meantime, there is free agency, and although the Redskins didn't make a big splash last summer, they did very well in free agency. Shanahan targeted specific players in the 27- to 29-year-old age group -- guys he believed were already established but still young and hungry enough to grow and develop with the team. He plans to use the same formula this year to address wide receiver, offensive line and the secondary. He's not after the biggest name out there. He's after the specific types of players he believes his team needs in order to build a consistent, year-to-year winner.

Which brings us back to Manning, one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time. Shanahan's not going to give Manning a big, five-year, huge-money deal. I don't think anyone is, given the health concerns, but if the market gets that crazy, I don't expect the Redskins to play in it. It just wouldn't be smart. Bringing Manning in on a one-year or two-year deal with incentives to allow him to prove he's healthy is smart, because if Manning is healthy, he's worth as much as any quarterback in the league.

That's the important thing to remember here, Redskins fans. Manning isn't a "fading star" who's past his prime. He was, before his neck injury, playing at as high a level as any quarterback in the league. He got hurt and missed a season. Now, it appears he'll be available again. And if he shows teams he can throw the ball the way he did in 2010, he's a smart short-term investment for a team that needs a quarterback answer now and for the future. The ideal solution would be both, but if that's not out there, the Redskins need to be smart about addressing the former while keeping their eye on the latter. So far, the Shanahan regime has shown that it doesn't do business like those "same old Redskins" who've hurt you so many times.

I link, therefore I am.

New York Giants

Ohm Youngmisuk of ESPNNewYork.com is breaking down his postseason Giants grades and expanding on them position-by-position. His first one is on quarterback, and as you may have guessed, Eli Manning gets an extremely good grade.

Big Blue View is also going position-by-position as it looks ahead to free agency. This edition of "strut 'em or cut 'em" is on wide receivers, specifically Mario Manningham, Domenik Hixon and Devin Thomas.

Philadelphia Eagles

Nick Fierro breaks down the DeSean Jackson situation and presses the point that the Eagles never pay anyone a dollar more than they believe him to be worth. This would seem to indicate that, even if they franchise Jackson, they would look to trade him or (less likely) do a new deal that would allow them to pay him less than the franchise number in 2012.

With the NFL scouting combine looming later this week, Jonathan Tamari writes that the Eagles rely much more on a player's college game film than anything they see at the combine. GM Howie Roseman says the most important information the team learns about players in Indy is medical information.

Dallas Cowboys

In light of Jason Hatcher's comments last week about the Cowboys lacking leadership, Calvin Watkins outlines some examples from the past year in which several players on the Cowboys' roster showed plenty of leadership, albeit in ways more quiet than those for which Hatcher's example, Ray Lewis, is known.

The Cowboys had some interest in cornerback Stanford Routt, but not as much as some other teams did, and Routt signed Monday with the Chiefs. What this means, however, is that the Chiefs are likely to let talented 25-year-old cornerback Brandon Carr leave via free agency, and that adds Carr to the mix of available cornerbacks for the Cowboys to target. Carr is better than Routt, but with star wide receiver Dwayne Bowe still to worry about, the Chiefs appear to have decided to go with a cheaper option.

Washington Redskins

Redskins GM Bruce Allen says the team has "a game plan" for what to do about quarterback this offseason, which is good to know. He doesn't say what that game plan is, which is no fun at all, but he clearly indicates that the team is pursuing several different options and is poised to change the plan depending on outside circumstances, what other teams do, etc. This is kind of the point I've been trying to make. For example, say their top choice is to trade up to the No. 2 pick for Robert Griffin III but someone else beats them to it. They need to be exploring options such as Peyton Manning, Kyle Orton, etc. just in case. I know we're all supposed to be dealing in absolutes in sports these days, but intelligent people who run their franchises intelligently can't afford to operate like that.

Mike Jones looks at the decision the Redskins face on whether to franchise tight end Fred Davis or safety LaRon Landry. I don't bet, but if I did, I'd bet heavy on Davis here. Landry's health questions have become too significant to allow the Redskins to invest guaranteed money in him -- even for one more year. The tight end number is low, and they have reason to believe Davis will be on his best behavior in the wake of his drug suspension.

INDIANAPOLIS -- Somebody wanted a Washington Redskins post. Hey, so do I. But when nothing's going on, nothing's going on. It hasn't been this hard to find Redskins topics since the lockout. But after I got back from the Madonna news conference, I found this item from the Washington Examiner, which attempts to shoot down all of the silly reasons people are coming up with to insist that either the Redskins won't pursue Peyton Manning or that he wouldn't want to play for them.

It's well done, especially insofar as it addresses flimsy, eight-year-old speculation that Manning wouldn't want to play in the same division as his brother. (Seriously, people. Do you think that's really still true if it ever was? Both guys are pretty well established at this point.) But this is the one I really want to address specifically:

5. The Redskins don't do business this way anymore » This one is true. But isn't the clock ticking on the Shanahan regime? And doesn't the owner have an itch he's dying to scratch?

I don't think the clock is, actually, ticking on the Mike Shanahan regime. He's entering the third-year of a five-year contract, and the aforementioned owner has, to this point, kept his contractual promise to remain in the background and allow Shanahan and Bruce Allen to build the team their way. There's nothing to indicate that's about to change.

Furthermore, signing Manning wouldn't represent a reversion by the Redskins to their "old way" of doing business. It would, if Manning is healthy, potentially represent the best possible short-term solution to their biggest short-term problem. They need a quarterback, Rex Grossman and John Beck aren't good enough, and even if they were, the two of them together aren't half as good as Peyton Bleeping Manning.

And yes, quarterback is a long-term problem for the Redskins, too. Signing Manning wouldn't help that. But if Shanahan can't find his franchise quarterback in this year's draft or free-agent market, what's so wrong about filling the Redskins' many other needs via those avenues and bringing in one of the best quarterbacks in the game to hold the place until they find the franchise guy?

All I know is, it's a weird world when people are thinking up reasons their team shouldn't want Peyton Manning. If he's healthy, he's going to help someone win games next year. Why wouldn't you want it to be your team?

Looks as though they're getting their snow early in Green Bay. A bunch will be on the ground when we arrive this weekend, but the forecast for Sunday remains clear and for a relatively balmy 24 degrees. Given what the calendar says and where they're going, the Giants will sign for that. There's a difference between Tom Coughlin's face being red and Tom Coughlin's face being dear-god-get-that-man-to-a-hospital red. Anyway, links.

New York Giants

Ian O'Connor looked back at the Lawrence Tynes kick that delivered the Giants' last playoff victory in Green Bay four years ago and talked with members of Tynes' family about the tough times they've all endured and the toughness that lives in the Giants' kicker as a result. It's a real good story. Apropos of nothing, though, did you know this Sunday's will be the first playoff game at Lambeau Field since that one? Not just for the Giants, but for the Packers too. They were a wild-card team last year. Played 'em all on the road.

More trivia: Gary Myers writes that this will be the first-ever playoff game featuring two quarterbacks who have previously won a Super Bowl MVP award. Gary takes a look at the matchup between Aaron Rodgers and Eli Manning.

Philadelphia Eagles

The Eagles lost their player personnel director Wednesday, as Ryan Grigson went off to run the Colts. So they'll need to restructure some things in their personnel department. Once they do, they have decisions to make on their own potential free agents, and Geoff Mosher runs through the list.

Those who assume the Eagles are sure to sign Steve Spagnuolo as their defensive coordinator simply because he used to work there have consistently ignored the obvious fact that the Eagles will have competition for the man's services. The Atlanta Falcons, who actually have an opening at defensive coordinator, have emerged as a strong suitor.

Dallas Cowboys

Remember when Cowboys defensive coordinator Rob Ryan was a hot name for potential head coaching jobs? Calvin Watkins writes that the way the Dallas defense played down the stretch may have taken Ryan off some of those lists -- for this year, at least.

Todd Archer believes, as I do, that there's a real good chance the Cowboys take an offensive linemen in the first round of the draft. But if they're going to put that high a value on their interior line needs, Todd writes, might they spend what it takes in free agency to sign someone like Saints guard Carl Nicks? Intriguing.

Washington Redskins

The Redskins are hiring former Buccaneers coach Raheem Morris to coach their defensive backs, according to Mike Jones. Lots of good connections here. Morris has worked on the same staff as Washington offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan and under GM Bruce Allen before. He's 35 years old and likely still a hot coaching prospect, regardless of what happened this year in Tampa Bay. I'll be interesting to see which defensive backs stick around for Morris to coach. Safeties coach Steve Jackson and wide receivers coach Keenan McCardell won't be back, Jason Reid writes. Jackson was in Washington for eight years.

Redskins kicker Graham Gano broke two bones in his back making a tackle in the season finale. Gano is a free agent and, as he rehabs his back, he wonders what his own future holds in Washington.

It's Thursday of a rivalry week here in the NFC East, and with mere days left until Cowboys-Redskins and Eagles-Giants, I can think of no better way to prepare than with a hot, steaming plate of links.

New York Giants

It sounds as though the experience that Victor Cruz and Chris Canty had while at a New York City nightclub where a fatal shooting took place the other night was fairly harrowing. They're both fine and neither was involved in the problem, but Cruz at least got a bit of a talking-to from Tom Coughlin about the whole thing. Nothing good ever happens at 2:30 in the morning, was the message from coach to player.

If you're a Giants fan and you were planning to boo Steve Smith when he returned with the Eagles on Sunday night... well, he gave you another reason or two. Man says he'd rather have the extra guaranteed money he got from the Eagles than have been back with the Giants.

Dallas Cowboys

John Clayton's expecting Tony Romo and the Cowboys to navigate the odd upcoming portion of their schedule (which includes next week's annual Thanksgiving home game) somewhat expertly, in part because the veterans on the team are so used to it. The quality of their opponents over the next three weeks could help with that as well, though Sunday's is a rivalry game, and those are never to be taken lightly.

Clarence Hill says the impending return of Felix Jones as DeMarco Murray's backup, the emergence of fullback Tony Fiammetta and the overall improvement of the offensive line as a run-blocking unit make it more important than ever that the Cowboys prioritize the run game in their offense. I don't have much to add. He's 100 percent correct.

Philadelphia Eagles

Bob Ford takes an insightful look at the DeSean Jackson situation, concluding that while Jackson may have a point and the team should have prevented this from becoming this much of a problem when they had a chance, Jackson needs to understand that the team is in no mood right now to address his contract to his satisfaction.

There's also some dispute in the Philadelphia media about the point during Sunday's game at which Michael Vick actually broke his ribs. Andy Reid says second play of the game. The professional skeptics whose job it is to question everything the coach says are doing their jobs. I just wish the doubt didn't seem to be based on something LeSean McCoy said offhand in a postgame interview. But these are the kinds of things that happen when you were picked to finish first and you're 3-6. I'll bet the 2010 Cowboys could tell them some stories.

Washington Redskins

Rex Grossman didn't learn he was starting last Sunday's game until Saturday, which he says was fine since he was ready anyway and wishes he could go back to the Week 5 loss to the Eagles, do things differently and not have lost the job to John Beck in the first place. But if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride, and if turnips were watches I'd wear one by my side.

Jason Reid says Redskins GM Bruce Allen needs to take more of a significant role in player-personnel matters whether Mike Shanahan likes it or not. I don't know this for a fact, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't the deal when Shanahan signed on for his five-year contract. Impatience seems rampant in Washington, and Shanahan has three more years after this one. Just because he didn't get a quarterback for this year doesn't mean he won't or can't figure out a way to get one for next year.

You know the scene near the end of "Hoosiers," when Gene Hackman looks each kid in the face while they have their hands together in that pregame huddle in the locker room and he finally says -- kind of whispers -- "I love you guys?" Yeah, well, when I saw this morning that you guys had taken a post that was essentially a wild guess about which team will be the best in the division from 2014-16 and put more than 2,000 comments on it, that's how I felt.

I also felt like we're all about ready for the lockout to end. Which it seems as if it is.

Once it does, of course, we will find out what the Eagles want and can get in return for quarterback Kevin Kolb. Lots of talk about this over the past couple of days, and Jeff McLane says that, if Arizona's offering cornerback Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie, the Eagles will want a pick to come with him. As we've discussed here many times, Philadelphia isn't interested in giving Kolb away. Once they do, they'll need to find a reliable backup for Michael Vick. If they can't get what they want for Kolb, they'll just keep him as that.

More Eagles

Speaking of Vick, one of the stipulations of his post-prison agreements with Roger Goodell, Andy Reid and Jeff Lurie was that he'd do more than just speak out against dogfighting -- that he'd actively campaign against it. Hence, Vick was in Washington to throw his support behind a bill making it a federal crime to attend an animal fight.

Dallas Cowboys

The Cowboys have brought their coaches back from their vacations in anticipation of the end of the lockout. This is how crazy this all is: Not only will free agency start next week, but some training camps, including the Cowboys' in San Antonio, are scheduled to start next week. Next week!

Rainer Sabin wonders if the new rules effectively eliminating two-a-day practices from training camp under the new agreement will impact Jason Garrett's plans to try to toughen up the atmosphere around the Cowboys players. I predict Garrett and other coaches can find ways to make things tougher on their players while staying in the rules. I also predict that some coaches and teams will break the rules, though I don't know which ones.

New York Giants

Ralph Vacchiano says that Osi Umenyiora won't hold up a labor agreement because of his own contract demands, the way it appeared as if Vincent Jackson and Logan Mankins might as of Tuesday. Ralph has a source telling him Umenyiora believes his beef to be with the Giants, not the league as a whole, and that he (Osi, not Ralph) might hold out of training camp if he doesn't get what he wants, which is a new contract or a trade. As Ralph points out, the Giants have too many free-agent concerns to allow them to give into Osi's demands. He's not likely to get much satisfaction here.

Fullback Vonta Leach says he likes the Giants if he ends up leaving the Houston Texans for free agency. There's been interest on the Giants' end in the past, as Ohm Youngmisuk writes, and the Giants had serious injury problems at that position in 2010. I don't know. You guys have been asking for under-the-radar names. There you go.

Washington Redskins

Mike Jones writes that coordinator Jim Haslett (second year of new scheme), safety LaRon Landry (health) and rookie Ryan Kerrigan (transition from college defensive end to pro linebacker) are among the Redskins with the most to prove on the defensive side of the ball this year.

And Dan Daly wonders if Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen are prepared for the speed with which free agency is expected to unfold. It's a question worth asking about 32 front offices right now. If this compressed free-agency period is going to unfold with as much insanity as everyone thinks it is, there are going to be some bad deals done both ways. The ones who come out of it the cleanest will be the teams and agents who kept their heads about them, stayed flexible and reacted both quickly and intelligently to unforeseen developments.

I'm going to go react quickly and intelligently to my stomach's rumbling and go eat some breakfast. You guys be careful out there today.

Took the chat on location today but it still went off brilliantly, as it always does. If you missed it ... well, I'm not even sure why I'm still trying to help you. But here are some of the highlights anyway.

Willow from Southside is, like a lot of Cowboys fans, worried about this cap number we're hearing and wondering who the Cowboys might cut in order to get under the cap.

Dan Graziano: Yes, Willow. They are going to have to make some cuts, and it'll be interesting to see who they drop. Marion Barber looks like a sure thing to be cut, and I'd imagine they're dropping Leonard Davis and some others. Terrence Newman may not be safe. Roy Williams' cap number could keep them from cutting him. Bradie James would be a cut that could save them money but might hurt the 2011 team too much.

Will Kelland from New York City wondered why Osi Umenyiora isn't getting the same amount of attention Vincent Jackson and Logan Mankins are getting today as a disgruntled plaintiff in the Brady antitrust case.

DG: Based on what's come out today, it sounds as if Osi isn't making the same kind of demands as those guys are. Plus, he wasn't franchised, as they were. So, different scenarios.

John from Philly wondered where Nnamdi Asomugha gets off asking for $18 million a year. Seems John doesn't think he's worth that or will get it.

DG: Well, Revis is making $16.25/year in the first two years of his deal, and I'm sure Nnamdi, being a free agent, is looking for more. I don't think he's better than Revis, but he is a free agent and that's how these things work. He's right to be starting in that ballpark, and I wouldn't be shocked if he gets it. Remember, the new rules will require teams to spend at least a certain percentage of the cap.

Brendan from DC, mindful of Dan Snyder's reckless free-agent history, says he'd rather see the Redskins sit out free agency and continue to build through the draft. Wants them to "do nothing" once the league year opens.

DG: They have too many holes to do nothing. And the new rules will require a certain level of spending. So I think you need to trust Shanahan and Allen to spend wisely and Snyder to stay out of it until we see that it doesn't work.

Lots more in the link, so go read it. You won't be disappointed. I promise. We do it every Tuesday at noon ET and would love to see you there.

Morning, all. I've got a whole new jacket/tie combo for you to critique this morning after I rock it once again on your TV screens. First Take, 10 am to noon ET. Me and Skip, for all the marbles. Meantime, I have some goodies lined up to keep you busy during commercial breaks. And I'm still planning on doing the weekly chat, even if it might not start right exactly at noon this week. And of course, you know you can count on the links.

Dallas Cowboys

Bucky Brooks thinks the Cowboys' biggest problem is a lack of leadership on the roster. I think that's not entirely fair to Tony Romo, who grew a lot in that role in late 2009 and looked to be doing fine with it before his mid-2010 injury, but I think there's a worthwhile point to be made about (Brooks' words here) "the lack of commitment, accountability and trust" on the defensive side of the ball. The Cowboys' defense collapsed entirely in 2010, to an extent far worse than the quality of its personnel should have allowed. And there really wasn't anybody standing up and owning it. It all fell on Wade Phillips, who's gone as a result. And much of the pressure to fix it will justifiably fall on new defensive coordinator Rob Ryan. But it'd be nice if you could figure out who the leader of the Dallas defense was. It'd be nice if someone would serve as its strong voice.

And this is the first entry in ESPNDallas.com's "Old School" series, in which they talk to old Cowboys about issues pertaining to the current Cowboys. This one is Calvin Watkins interviewing Everson Walls about the current secondary. It's cool and interesting in its own right, but I link to it because I want to know how I get one of those shirts like Calvin has for my video mailbags. Can someone get on this, please?

New York Giants

John Clayton's latest mailbag includes a question on Osi Umenyiora's unhappiness with his contract situation. "If he's not satisfied, maybe there will be a trade," John writes. "Don't be surprised if Seattle gets involved. It's also not out of the question for him to get a contract extension. This could be one of the most interesting stories at the start of free agency." I agree that it'll be an interesting story for as long as Osi chooses to make it one, but I think the most likely outcome is that the Giants call his bluff and he reports to camp and plays for them.

After Ahmad Bradshaw's agent went on the radio Tuesday and said he'd be interested in the Dolphins if the Dolphins were interested in him, Bradshaw went on the radio Tuesday night and said he hoped to be a Giant next year. If teams do in fact get three days before the market opens to sign their own free agents, I believe the Giants will spend a large chunk of that three-day period working on locking up Bradshaw.

Philadelphia Eagles

We're going to do the Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie/Kevin Kolb thing in a separate post, probably about an hour from now, but don't worry. I didn't miss it. Meantime, Jeff McLane thinks the Eagles shouldn't trade Kolb at all. You guys know where I am on this. Jeff's right, in the abstract, that Kolb is important to the Eagles as Michael Vick's backup because Vick gets hurt. But Kolb is only important because he's a guy they know they can stick in there and know they'll have a chance to win the game if/when Vick does get hurt. If you can get great value for him (i.e., some other team compensates you for a starting quarterback), and then go sign another veteran you can stick in there and know that guy can win a game for you, then what have you really lost?

I found the part of item No. 2 of this Geoff Mosher notebook particularly interesting -- the part about Eagles offensive linemen losing weight because new line coach Howard Mudd likes slimmer linemen. Lots of interesting stuff in that notebook, actually. But for some reason the skinny-linemen thing struck me as kind of funny.

Washington Redskins

John Beck is fired up for the end of the lockout, as he should be. Talk about a guy getting his big chance. If enthusiasm can win games...

Bruce Allen says the Redskins believe their new FedEx Field "party decks" will "get more young people involved, more families involved." I don't think that's actually what party decks do. Young people, maybe, but not families so much.

That's it for links. More to come, as you undoubtedly know.

This all started in April, at the draft, when everybody knew the Redskins needed a quarterback, but they didn't pick one. This meant something must be up. And when coach Mike Shanahan explained things shortly thereafter by saying the Redskins wanted to go with John Beck because they thought highly of him coming out of school, it didn't mollify the doubters. Shanahan can't be serious, most people thought. There's some sort of trick at work here. My first thought was that Shanahan was trying to leverage potential trade partners or free agents by pumping up Beck as a viable option he already had.

But in the months since, it's become clear that the Redskins' 2011 quarterback plan is, in fact, Beck. Or some combination of Beck and Rex Grossman. And so the comments and questions I now receive about the Redskins' quarterback situation have two running themes, neither of which makes any sense at all:

1. The Redskins are trying to "tank" the 2011 season so they can lose as many games as possible, get the No. 1 draft pick in 2012 and take Stanford's Andrew Luck.

2. This is a good idea.

Enough already. The Redskins are in no way planning to "tank" an entire NFL season, mainly because teams don't do that. This (thankfully) isn't the NBA, where the insane salary-cap structure encourages teams to lose games intentionally in an effort to improve their position in the draft and/or free agency. The 2011 Redskins are not the 2008-09 New York Knicks, and their decision to go with apparently substandard personnel at the most important position on the field shouldn't make anybody think this is the case.

Why would any team go into any NFL season convinced it didn't have a chance to win? This league is as unpredictable, year to year, as any in the world. Every year, at least one team that was lousy the year before shocks everyone and wins its division. Anybody see the Chiefs coming last year? The Bengals the year before that? The only thing you know about how an NFL season is going to go is that you don't know. And this year -- with the offseason wiped out by the lockout and an insane, compressed free-agency period still to come -- could be one of the toughest ever to predict.

So why tank? What if you turn out to be good? What if Beck plays all right, the defense comes together in the second year of the 3-4, the young running backs are studs and the offensive line takes a big step forward? The Redskins won six games last year. (Same as the Cowboys, by the way. Should they "tank" too?) The Skins need to add three to that total to contend for a playoff spot. Do I think they'll do it? No, I do not. But I'm going to miss on some team. I know that for sure. Some team will have a better year than any of us expected. That mere fact is the biggest reason you don't -- and shouldn't -- see NFL teams "tank" seasons.

This is what the Redskins are saying if they go with Beck/Grossman at quarterback for this year:

1. They didn't view any of the quarterbacks they could have drafted as their long-term solution at the position.

2. They know that the first round of next year's draft includes several guys who could fit that description. Not just Luck, but guys like Landry Jones and Matt Barkley, too. You don't need to have the No. 1 pick next year to fix your quarterback problem. You just need to stay flexible enough to be able to move into position to get the guy you like.

3. For that reason, the Redskins don't want to deal draft picks for (or commit long-term money to) a veteran quarterback such as Carson Palmer or Matt Hasselbeck, who might help them win an extra game or two this year, only to find themselves unable to move into the draft position they'll need to be in next April.

4. The Redskins have enough other needs that, without an available quarterback option they like better than Beck, it makes more sense to address cornerback, the lines and maybe wide receiver than to force a quarterback solution with which they're not comfortable.

That is a sensible way of doing things, and that's what the Redskins are up to if they go with Beck and/or Grossman. They're not "tanking." Shanahan is in the second year of a five-year contract. And although, yes, there is a rebuilding component to Shanahan's assignment, owner Dan Snyder didn't give him that contract and then tell him it was OK to be one of the league's worst teams for more than half of it. Snyder wants to win as soon as possible. Shanahan wants to win as soon as possible. And he and general manager Bruce Allen are balancing that desire with the long-term health of the franchise and making reasonable decisions instead of rash ones. Given the recent history of Redskins offseasons, you'd think their fans would appreciate that.

The worst-case scenario is that it all falls apart, Beck is a disaster, and the Redskins do indeed find themselves in a position to draft Luck, Jones or Barkley. The best-case scenario is that Shanahan coaches Beck into a quality starter and they go into next year's draft not needing a quarterback. The most likely result is somewhere in between, and that's fine. Because there are a lot of good potential outcomes in between those two. And the Redskins (and every other NFL team) would be foolish to rule them all out.

Good morning, friends. I was away for a couple of days. Osi and Shady still fighting? That might be a good Fired-Up Friday topic this week: Which two NFC East players would you most like to see fight, either on Twitter or in real life? "Twitter gangster." That's still making me laugh.

Anyway, new week, new links:

Dallas Cowboys

We're not the only ones who like to do the rankings/comparisons thing during this lockout-imposed downtime. The DCFanatics blog was mulling the relative rankings of Chargers QB Philip Rivers and the Cowboys' Tony Romo in the NFL Network's player-voted top 100 and tweeted receiver Patrick Crayton (who's played with both) to ask him who's the better team leader. Crayton's response was what you'd expect, since he's a current teammate of Rivers' and since this isn't really a close call. I've said a few times here that I put Romo in or right on the edge of the top 10 QBs in the league. But Rivers is top five, and right now I don't see any comparison. Good for DCF, though, for thinking to ask someone with firsthand knowledge.

And while we're on the topic of the NFL Network's list, Nick Eatman muses on the idea that the Cowboys' most-talented player might not even be on it.

New York Giants

The Osi Umenyiora stuff still had some legs Friday night and into Saturday, and Ralph Vacchiano drew an interesting comparison to past Giants malcontent Jeremy Shockey while raising the specter of a Umenyiora holdout. I'm interested (as Ralph apparently is) to see how far Umenyiora wants to push this. Because when things have flared up with him in recent years, they've been able to talk to him and mellow him out before it became a real problem. Right now, his GM and his coaches can't talk to him. So all he can do is stew and talk to the media. By the time there's anything resembling a Giants training camp, this could be a pretty serious brush fire.

If you still care at all about Tiki Barber, you can apparently catch an interview with him Tuesday night on "Real Sports" on HBO. You'll have to tell me how it was. "He now needs football more than it needs him?" No kidding.

Philadelphia Eagles

Mark Eckel says the key to the Eagles' 2011 season will be the offensive line. Specifically, he says the season will be determined by new line coach Howard Mudd and guard Todd Herremans. And he wonders if the Eagles would be better off moving Herremans to right tackle, where uncertainty surrounds the Winston Justice/King Dunlap combo. I got nothing on this. Your thoughts?

And a Michael Vick autograph signing in New Jersey brought into focus once again two the unavoidable truth about Vick: There are people who will never forgive him for what he did, and people who just don't care anymore because he's so good at football. I'm not big into extremes either way, and this I guess is kind of why. There's more nuance to the Vick story than most people want to bother with. Most people, it seems, aren't really into nuance.

Washington Redskins

Bruce Allen says he'd trade for Donovan McNabb again. This seems foolish to me, and not just because McNabb is already on the team. (bah-dum-bump!) Seriously, though, I don't see what's so bad about saying, "Hey, it looked like a good move at the time and it didn't work out." Guess maybe they need to maintain some shred of leverage in negotiations when the lockout ends and they need to trade him, but I don't think they're kidding anybody.

I got a kick out of the idea that LaVar Arrington devoted a portion of his DC-area radio show last week to disputing his placement on Redskins.com's list of the top five Redskins draft picks of the 2000s. Here is the writer's defense of that ranking, which seems very logical. I just happen to like LaVar a great deal personally and wish I'd been listening when he was arguing for his right to the top spot.

Enjoy these tasty morning morsels to get a new week off to the right kind of start here on the NFC East blog, and I promise I'll be back soon with much, much more.

The Redskins are a critical part of NFL labor strife lore. Under Joe Gibbs, they survived the strikes of 1982 and 1987 better than any team in the league, winning the Super Bowl at the end of each of those disrupted seasons. The New York Times did a big story on this a couple of months back, examining the reasons Washington was able to go 8-1 in '82 and 3-0 with replacement players in '87 and weather those labor storms to become champions. Not coincidence, say those who were involved, as much as it was about Gibbs and the way the veteran cores of those teams held things together.

Knowledge of this history has led some to suggest (facetiously, of course) that 2011 could be the Redskins' year. Hey, they always win the Super Bowl when there's a work stoppage, so this is just what they need, right? If there'd been a lockout two years ago, Jim Zorn would be wearing a ring right now and Mike Shanahan would be coaching the Cowboys. Or something like that.

Well, unfortunately for the Redskins, while history may well be on their side, reality is not. Not this time. Given their current circumstances, the Redskins are surely more likely than any other NFC East team to suffer damage as a result of the lockout. Given where they are right now in the development of their franchise, the Redskins might be hurt worse by this lockout than any team in the whole league.

This is a critical season for Mike Shanahan as Washington's coach. Sure, it's only the second year of his five-year deal, and for that reason job security is the last thing he's worried about. But this year is critical for other reasons -- reasons that pertain to Shanahan's goal of building the Redskins back into contenders.

Shanahan's first season was a bumpy one, and his midseason handling of Donovan McNabb and the quarterback situation in general raised eyebrows among people who'd expected a man with his résumé to deal with such things more artfully. But on balance, the 2010-11 season served a key purpose for Shanahan. It established him as the unquestioned leader, face and voice of the franchise. The skirmishes with McNabb and Albert Haynesworth were merely the most public manifestations of Shanahan's assertion of himself. Zorn had been weak and overmatched in the head coach role, and it was important for Shanahan to establish right away that he would be neither.

Critical to that effort was the subversion by team owner Daniel Snyder of his own out-front persona. As a condition of taking the job, Shanahan insisted that he be given control over football matters and that Snyder not meddle in personnel decisions to the extent that he had in the past. Against all expectations, Snyder actually pulled this off. The 2010-11 season was his quietest as Redskins owner, and his disappearance into the background helped Shanahan do the things he needed to do in order to deliver his new-sheriff-in-town message.

The lockout could wipe out some of that momentum. Shanahan's assertion of leadership and Snyder's step into the background are vital to the Redskins' near-future success, but one year wasn't enough to lock those things in. With Shanahan unable to coach, the risk rises that he ends up starting from or near scratch once his players return to Ashburn. With Shanahan and GM Bruce Allen unable to make personnel moves, the risk rises that Snyder gets itchy and impatient and backslides into his old ways. He could decide to go nuts once free agency opens against the advice of the football minds he hired and promised to leave alone. Not saying this is what will happen, mind you, just that the "pause" button the league has pressed on its offseason increases the risk.

It's also preventing the Redskins from doing a number of vital housekeeping things. They need to move on from McNabb and figure out what their 2011 quarterback situation really is. If it really is John Beck, then he'll need to know he's not just a Shanahan smokescreen and get in to practice huddles so his teammates know it, too. If it's to be Carson Palmer or someone not currently on the roster, then they need to get on with that as well.

They need to resolve the Haynesworth situation, of course. He needs to go, certainly, and dispatching him will be as cathartic a move as Shanahan's ever made. But the lockout will end with Haynesworth still on the team, along with all the distractions he brings, and his mere presence will be a story for as long as it takes them, post-lockout, to get rid of him.

They need to keep working on Jim Haslett's 3-4 defense, because as we discussed here Monday the second year is a crucial one for the install of a 3-4. They need a nose tackle, and they need to know how realistic it is to get someone like Aubrayo Franklin in free agency -- a move that probably would help them more than a splashier play for someone like Nnamdi Asomugha, though they need to know about him, too. And as they've seemed to since the Art Monk days ... sheesh, they still need help at receiver.

The Redskins have a lot they need to do -- more than most teams, really, given where they are in this particular chapter of their history. Because of that, when I'm asked which team in this division I think will be hurt most by the lockout, my answer's easy. This won't be 1982 or 1987 for the Redskins. This year's work stoppage is a huge problem for them.

As a new week dawns in the NFC East, thoughts turn to the Oneida Correctional Facility, where former Giants WR Plaxico Burress has two weeks left before his release. He'll turn 34 in August, hasn't played in two years and is returning to an NFL that has no idea when, or if, its season will start; to a field of potentially interested teams that have no idea when or if they'll be able to sign him. But speculation is unavoidable, and you're going to hear plenty of Plaxico speculation here in the NFC East.

Gary Myers of the New York Daily News wrote over the weekend that he's heard the Eagles would be first in line to sign Burress upon his release. Myers names the Steelers, Chargers, Falcons and Ravens, too, and he doesn't think the Giants will go for a reunion. But the Eagles idea is interesting. Obviously, the Michael Vick rehabilitation experience indicates the Eagles can handle such a project and that coach Andy Reid doesn't mind the idea of bringing in a talented ex-convict and being patient with him. Burress would give Vick the kind of big downfield target that neither DeSean Jackson nor Jeremy Maclin, for all of their exciting talents, offer. And Philadelphia isn't too far from Burress' New Jersey home, which might make it appealing on his end.

Contrary to what Myers thinks, I wouldn't rule out the Giants. They seem set at receiver, but Burress still has many friends there, and those friends are eager to bring him back. I'm sure they'll at least discuss it. And I'm not counting out the Redskins, either. Leonard Hankerson notwithstanding, they're not exactly loaded at WR. As for the Eagles, they were a stunning destination for Vick, if you'll recall. They came out of nowhere to sign him. If they're to sign Burress, I imagine we won't hear much from them in advance of it. They like to keep things close to the vest there. But Burress to the Eagles makes a decent amount of sense if you're speculating. Which, at this point, we all are.

Meanwhile, as they say in Scotland: To the links!

Dallas Cowboys

Blogging the Boys looks at the Dallas secondary situation, wondering specifically what would become of Terence Newman if Dallas went out and signed a free-agent cornerback. Specifically, some thought here that the Redskins might be interested in Newman if they lose Carlos Rogers and don't sign Nnamdi Asomugha, whose name is required to appear in every edition of the NFC East breakfast links.

Charean Williams talked to backup QB Stephen McGee about what he's learning in the player-only workouts with Tony Romo. She didn't ask him whether he ranked Romo or Eli Manning higher, presumably because she assumed he'd already weighed in here along with the rest of you. (tee-hee)

New York Giants

Giants coach Tom Coughlin, the original coach of the Jacksonville Jaguars, is back in Jacksonville for his annual Jay Fund charity golf outing, which raises money for children with cancer. Several Giants players are there along with him. The Giants' Twitter page quotes from Coughlin's Sunday night speech: "Thanks for being here tonight and giving me a chance to see my players." What a card, huh?

Ahmad Bradshaw has apparently changed agents, dropping Craig Domann and signing up with Drew Rosenhaus. Now, Bradshaw and Rosenhaus both wait and hope that the 2011 free-agency rules turn out to make him an unrestricted free agent, rather than a restricted one.

Philadelphia Eagles

Jon Tamari talked to 2010 first-round pick Brandon Graham about the challenges he faces trying to come back from his knee injury during the lockout. The Eagles can make all of the improvements they want on defense this offseason, but few would help as much as the healthy return of last year's 13th overall pick to the pass-rush effort.

Interesting look by Moving the Chains at Trent Cole's rank among defensive linemen in a stat Football Outsiders calls "defeats." A defeat, in this case, is a good thing if you're a defensive player, and Cole is obviously a very good one. (Further down, incidentally, Sheil Kapadia disagrees with me and Gary Myers about the likelihood/sense of the Burress thing.)

Washington Redskins

Mark Rypien told the Washington Post that he thought Donovan McNabb was "the perfect guy for the job" of Redskins quarterback. Rypien shares this opinion with the August 2010 versions of McNabb and Mike Shanahan.

Oh, and Skins GM Bruce Allen did a little backpedaling over the weekend, attempting to clarify Friday's remarks about how "aggressive" the team was planning to be once free agency started. It is important to Allen that people don't expect the Redskins to resume the irresponsible free-agent spending that preceded his tenure under Dan Snyder. Asked specifically about that issue, Allen says, "No, we've dealt with that." Obviously, his comments Friday were interpreted in many places (including here) as an indication that Washington would return to its free-spending ways. Allen seems to be wanting to deliver the message instead that the team is in a good position to spend to address its many needs. It's a subtle but critical distinction for which he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Snyder stayed out of the way last offseason, and there's no reason yet to believe he won't keep that same promise to Allen and Shanahan this year.