ESPN NFL

Yeah, there is one more team left in our series analyzing the history of the specific draft picks held by each team in the NFC East. Enough of you have enjoyed it, I think, to make it worth the time spent researching it. I was planning to do the New York Giants' one earlier in the week, but the Giants made so much news this week that it just kept getting pushed back. Funny thing -- if I'd done it earlier in the week, they'd have had eight picks. But after the trade with the Bengals that brought them linebacker Keith Rivers, they're back down to seven.

Please note that, prior to 2002 and again in 2008, the 32nd pick in the draft was not a first-round pick. The only pre-2002 exception was 1995.

Not a lot of excitement historically at the picks the Giants have this year, though that No. 32 pick has produced a few guys who played in a number of recent Super Bowls.

PICK 32 (32nd pick, first round)

Last five players picked

2011 -- Derrek Sherrod, T, Packers

2010 -- Patrick Robinson, CB, Saints

2009 -- Ziggy Hood, DT, Steelers

2008 -- Philip Merling, DE, Dolphins (second-round pick)

2007 -- Anthony Gonzalez, WR, Colts

Giants' history of No. 32 pick

2006 -- Mathias Kiwanuka

1981 -- Dave Young

1977 -- Johnny Perkins

Hall of Famers picked No. 32

Bob St. Clair (1953)

Other notables

Mathias Kiwanuka (2006), Logan Mankins (2005), Drew Brees (2001)

PICK 63 (31st pick, second round)

2011 -- Marcus Gilbert, T, Steelers

2010 -- Pat Angerer, LB, Colts

2009 -- Cody Brown, TE, Cardinals

2008 -- Terrell Thomas, CB, Giants

2007 -- Brandon Jackson, RB, Packers

Giants' history of No. 63 pick

2008 -- Terrell Thomas

1983 -- Jamie Williams

Hall of Famers picked No. 63

Couldn't find one.

PICK 94 (31st pick, third round)

Last five players picked

2011 -- Kenrick Ellis, DT, Jets

2010 -- Kevin Thomas, DB, Colts

2009 -- Ryan Mouton, DB, Titans

2008 -- Kevin O'Connell, QB, Patriots

2007 -- Michael Okwo, LB, Bears

Giants' history of No. 94 picks

None

Hall of Famers picked No. 94

None. Charlie Joiner went No. 93 to the Oilers in 1969, and the 49ers followed up by taking running back Gene Moore at No. 94. Joiner is in the Hall of Fame. Moore is not. He had four career yards on two carries.

PICK 127 (32nd pick, fourth round)

Last five players taken

2011 -- Rashad Carmichael, DB, Texans

2010 -- E.J. Wilson, DE, Seahawks

2009 -- Austin Collie, WR, Colts

2008 -- Jacob Tamme, TE, Colts

2007 -- Kareem Brown, DT, Patriots

Giants' history of No. 127 pick

Never had it.

Hall of Famers picked No. 127

None.

PICK 131 (36th pick, fourth round)

Last five players taken

2011 -- Davon House, DB, Packers

2010 -- Roddrick Muckelroy, LB, Bengals

2009 -- Greg Toler, DB, Cardinals

2008 -- Jack Ikegwuonu, DB, Eagles

2007 -- Brannon Condren, DB, Colts

Giants' history of No. 131 pick

Also, never had this one.

Hall of Famers picked No. 131

Nada.

PICK 201 (31st pick, sixth round)

Last five players taken

2011 -- Stephen Schilling, T, Chargers

2010 -- Jorrick Calvin, DB, Cardinals

2009 -- Curtis Painter, QB, Colts

2008 -- Steve Justice, C, Colts

2007 -- Rashad Barskdale, CB, Eagles

Giants' history of No. 201 pick

1979 -- Roy Simmons

1978 -- Jeff Grady

Hall of Famers picked No. 201

None. Richard Dent was picked No. 203 and Bart Starr was picked No. 200, as covered in the Eagles' post.

PICK 239 (32nd pick, seventh round)

Last five players taken

2011 -- Mike Person, G, 49ers

2010 -- Sean Canfield, QB, Saints

2009 -- Ryan Durand, G, Titans

2008 -- Mike Merritt, TE, Chiefs

2007 -- C.J. Ah You, DE, Bills

Giants' history of No. 239 pick

1967 -- Dick Stebbins

Hall of Famers picked No. 239

None that I could find. The Giants' numbers this year just haven't turned up too many!

Matt Williamson of Scouts, Inc. has ranked each of the 12 NFL playoff teams by position group. He gives each group a score from 1 to 12 -- 1 being the best and 12 being the worst, and adds all of the scores up. The New York Giants came in eighth in the rankings, ahead of Sunday's opponent, the Atlanta Falcons, as well as the Detroit Lions, Cincinnati Bengals and Denver Broncos.

You can find the offensive position-group rankings here and the defensive ones here, but this is an Insider feature and you'll only be able to read it if you pay for it. So I'll hit some of the Giants-related highlights for you:

The Giants rank no better than fifth in any of the position groups except one. Matt has rated their defensive line No. 1 in these playoffs:

We will be privileged to watch some great defensive lines this postseason. With Justin Tuck and Osi Umenyiora now healthy and playing at a high level, I picked the New York Giants for the top spot here. But the reality is, there could be a great argument for Baltimore (I do count Terrell Suggs as a defensive end, not a linebacker) or San Francisco to claim the top spot.

Matt has the Giants fifth-best at quarterback, with Eli Manning ranking behind Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Tom Brady and Ben Roethlisberger. You could make a case, certainly, for the 2011 version of Manning being better than Roethlisberger, but you can't argue with Big Ben's postseason record.

Matt also has the Giants fifth at running back, behind Houston, Baltimore, San Francisco and New Orleans and ahead of Atlanta, which surprised me a little except that I know Matt likes Ahmad Bradshaw a lot and that, like me, he puts the blame for the Giants' 32nd-ranked running game far more on the offensive line than on the backs.

The Giants' worst grades came at offensive line and linebacker, where he ranks each 10th. The Giants' line ranks ahead of only Atlanta's and San Francisco's, and at linebacker he ranks them ahead of only Cincinnati and New Orleans. The Giants don't have a case at either of these positions. Their line has played better recently, but (a) so has Atlanta's, since they went more to the no-huddle in the second half of the season and (b) on overall 16-game body of work, the ranking is justified. I mean, 32nd in the league in rushing is 32nd in the league in rushing.

Matt also has the Giants ninth at defensive back and seventh at special teams, which again ... tough to really argue.

A couple of spots where I think he underrated the Giants a bit are at receiver, where he has them sixth, and at coaching, where he has them eighth. The receiver rankings are real eye-of-the-beholder stuff, and when you factor in tight ends, yeah, I can see how someone might rank them behind New England or Detroit. I personally think the Hakeem Nicks-Victor Cruz tandem this year ranks with any one-two wideout combo in the whole league, but again -- eye of the beholder. And on coaching? Tom Coughlin's used to being underrated, even in his own town. He'll survive.

Bottom line, if Matt's right, the places where the Giants are weak are similar to those in which the Falcons are weak, which bodes well for them in this first-round game. And in the places where they're strong -- quarterback and defensive line -- they rank with or ahead of anyone, which bodes well for them if they get past the Falcons.

ASHBURN, Va. -- Everyone knows the Washington Redskins need a quarterback. Head coach Mike Shanahan might not want to come out and say he needs to fix quarterback this offseason, since he doesn't want to insult the players he currently has at the position. But in a wide-ranging interview in his office Friday, he did acknowledge that it would be good to have a "franchise" guy.

"Everybody wants a franchise quarterback," Shanahan said. "Every team you talk to, if you don't have a franchise quarterback, everybody's looking for a franchise quarterback. I understand. If you're in this business long enough, you understand that everybody wants a Peyton Manning, a Drew Brees, a Tom Brady, and rightfully so. If they're out there, you try and get one. And if they're not, you go with what you have and try and get it done."

I pointed out to Shanahan that part of the problem is that there aren't 32 guys in the world who fit that description. He smiled.

"Not everybody understands that," he said.

I left Shanahan's office with the definite impression that the Redskins would look at every conceivable available option at quarterback this offseason -- drafting one, trading up to get an Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin III if they need to, or even looking at the possibility of bringing in Manning if the Colts let him go as expected and he can prove he's healthy. Shanahan didn't really discuss any of those specific names, and I didn't expect him to, but every time I raised a specific possibility, he made it clear they'll look at all options.

As for other needs, let's go to your questions.

Jason from Washington, D.C. checked into the mailbag last week and wanted me to ask Shanahan what was "the most glaring positional need" for the Redskins to address in the draft or free agency.

Mike Shanahan: "We've got to get a wide receiver that's a playmaker. You've got to have a No. 1, no question about it. We've got [Santana] Moss, and [Jabar] Gaffney, who's going to be right at 1,000 yards. But you're still looking for a guy that can go the distance and make plays, running on a short shallow cross and go the distance. Everybody's looking for that."

---

Later in the interview, the topic of rookie wide receiver Leonard Hankerson came up. Hankerson missed the final seven weeks of the season with a hip injury, but Shanahan's eyes got big when he talked about him.

MS: "I think he's got a chance to be the guy. Health is what we don't know. He's got the hip. But we're hoping he's going to be that guy. You can see in practice where he's a natural. Big. The thing that separates guys at No. 1 is when they can beat bump coverage and they don't have to slow down to beat it. They're able to keep their speed and be able to get by somebody. He's got that."

Of course, if the Redskins are looking for a No. 1 receiver for next year, it's unlikely they'll be willing to take a chance that Hankerson could come that quickly. There are some potential free-agent options in guys like Dwayne Bowe, Stevie Johnson, Reggie Wayne and Vincent Jackson. And if the Redskisn decide to take a receiver instead of a quarterback in the first round, Oklahoma State's Justin Blackmon is the top option.

---

Bill from Maryland submitted a question asking what Shanahan's plans are for free agency, and he responded that they'd be similar to what they were last year, when they targeted a couple of specific guys with specific characteristics -- Barry Cofield, Stephen Bowen, Josh Wilson -- at some need positions.

MS: "We'll try and do the same thing this year -- take a look at a couple of upgrades on defense, a couple of upgrades on offense. Guys that have proven themselves, who aren't too old, that we think are still hungry in that 26-, 27-, 28-year-old range. That's what we'd like to target in free agency if we can get those guys, and then try to target everything else in the draft."

So there you go. That's your fun homework assignment for this week. Go look at the lists of prospective free agents and find guys in that 26-28-year-old range who play positions like safety and offensive line and wide receiver and see if you can figure out who they might be targeting. I will of course do what I can to find out more, but it sounds like we can start piecing some possibilities together no?

Lots more to come all this week from my Shanahan interview, including more of your questions.

EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. -- Antrel Rolle didn't like my question. It was about the consistently permissive play of the New York Giants' secondary this season, and Rolle responded by asking me how many passing yards Washington Redskins quarterback Rex Grossman had in Sunday's 23-10 Redskins victory. When someone else told him it was 185, he laughed and shook his head, indicating that the number had rendered my question foolish.

Whatever. I don't love being talked down to by football players, but it's hardly the first time and I can take it. What I dispute is not Rolle's understandable attitude but rather his flawed premise. Just because Grossman didn't throw for 350 yards doesn't mean the Giants played a good defensive game. Grossman is not Drew Brees or Aaron Rodgers or Tony Romo -- the three guys who picked apart the Giants' defense the past three weeks. I guess if you want to get technical, he's not even Vince Young, who got 258 against them the last time they lost a home game to a division opponent they should have handled without any trouble.

Grossman is the quarterback of the Redskins. And when the Redskins' offense is at its best, it's not throwing for tons of yards. It's running and controlling the clock and converting every third down in sight with a smart, not spectacular, throw. Grossman got picked off twice early in the game on deep throws and then he and the Redskins' coaches made the very smart decision to cut those out. And thereafter, the Redskins did absolutely everything they wanted to do on offense the rest of the game. They dominated the Giants, and just because they were low-key about it doesn't mean Rolle and his defensive teammates shouldn't be ashamed of themselves.

The Giants (7-7) had the chance Sunday to step up and win an important game -- they're now a game behind Dallas (8-6) in the NFC East with two to play -- and they failed because they are insufficiently equipped and inconsistently motivated. What's even more maddening about these Giants than their inability to stop opposing offenses is their inability to figure out why they can't.

"They just kind of started bleeding us a little bit," defensive end Justin Tuck said. "I don't know how to tell you what went wrong. We just didn't make enough plays, I guess. That was our Achilles' heel all day. We didn't keep them off the football field."

The Redskins played exactly the game they wanted to play, and the Giants could do nothing to stop them. They can do nothing, right now, to stop anyone. Their defense is a sieve, and their only hope of winning a game right now, no matter the opponent, is for Eli Manning and the offense to go absolutely bonkers. On Sunday, Manning threw three interceptions, Hakeem Nicks dropped a sure touchdown pass and the Giants couldn't make one of Manning's patented comebacks. Bad game for the Giants' quarterback? Sure. But everybody's entitled to one, and you'd like to think that, when it happens, the other parts of your team will pick you up. Right now, there's no other aspect of the Giants capable of doing that, and when Manning doesn't play great, they have no chance.

"You just keep working at it and keep trying," Giants coach Tom Coughlin said when asked about the problems in pass coverage. "We keep maneuvering around and changing coverages and trying to get people in the best possible spots. We're trying to understand what the opponent will try and do to us. That continues."

But there continue to be no answers. The Giants have been running rookie cornerback Prince Amukamara out there for significant numbers of key snaps. He continues to play like a rookie who missed the first half of the season with a foot injury, still working to learn the communication nuances that are vital to his ability to do his job. And opposing teams are targeting him relentlessly -- enough that Coughlin stuck him on the bench for much of the second half.

"It seemed like they threw the ball in that direction and we were not having a lot of success," Coughlin said. "But it wasn't just him. It wasn't just Prince."

Which is the problem. The Giants could carry a rookie at the No. 3 cornerback spot if starting corners Corey Webster and Aaron Ross were covering better. Or if Rolle and Deon Grant were making plays at the safety position. Or if they had anything at all at linebacker. Or if their pass rush was at full strength. But because of injuries and an initial lack of depth, the defense is too shorthanded at too many places. And the starters who are playing (such as Rolle) seem concerned about the wrong things. Who cares how many yards Grossman had if he was 7-for-10 on third down?

"I don't think they did anything special today," said Rolle, who claimed after the Week 1 loss in Washington that the Giants would beat the Redskins 99 times if they played them 100. "We could have made things a lot more difficult for them than we did."

That right there is the point, Rolle. The Giants' defense is making it too easy for the opposing offense and the opposing quarterback, no matter who it is, every single week. Just because Sunday's game wasn't some epic shootout doesn't make that any less true than it was against the Saints or the Packers or the Cowboys. When the Giants need to make a stop, they can't. And while they still have a chance to win the division by winning their final two games, at some point the fact that they're a very bad defense is going to cost them.

The best news for the beleaguered New York Giants' secondary is that they're done, for now, with a run of games against the league's best and most varied passing offenses. After three straight games against the Saints, Packers and Cowboys, the Washington Redskins could feel like something of a breather for a Giants' defense that has allowed a stunning 121 points and 1,337 passing yards over its last three games. But the Redskins haven't been rolling over. Even after losing his starting left tackle and top receiver to suspensions last week, Washington quarterback Rex Grossman threw for 252 yards last week against the Patriots.

So the second-best news for the Giants' secondary is that its best safety, Kenny Phillips, appears set to return from the knee injury that kept him out of Sunday's game in Dallas. Per ESPNNewYork.com:

With a big divisional game on tap for Sunday, as the Giants can ensure that they will be playing for the divisional title on Jan. 1 with a win, Phillips expects that he will be back in his starting spot at strong safety against Washington.

Phillips is third on the team with 67 total tackles.

"Can't sit this one out, won't happen," Phillips said.

Phillips has been a key contributor in run support as well as in coverage this season, and while the Giants weren't exactly locking teams down while he was in there, Grossman isn't Drew Brees or Aaron Rodgers, either, and Phillips' return should give the Giants a chance to play the kind of confidence-building defensive game they need to play as they head into this critical season-ending three-game stretch. One game in which the Giants get to play defense the way they feel they can and should play it would set the Giants up nicely for the Christmas Even game against the Jets and the Jan. 1 rematch with the Cowboys. If the Redskins light them up, even if Eli Manning comes back again and fixes it all, the worries about the coverage will reach new heights.

Drew Brees may have helped put the NFC East race into focus on Monday night by disassembling the Giants. If nothing else, we have separation at the top and a new outright leader in the standings and in the links.

Dallas Cowboys (7-4)

I remember back at the beginning of the season, when Anthony Spencer told me the thing he'd learned from his disappointing 2010 season was that he could no longer "mail in" practice days. Well, Spencer's having a big year in advance of a contract push, and he admits that playing in the final year of his contract is part of his motivation to remain focused every day. If that's what helps, the Cowboys will take it.

Tim MacMahon wonders if the Cowboys need to be careful not to overwork rookie running back DeMarco Murray now that he's become their clear feature back. It's a worthwhile point, since he is a rookie after all, and I wonder if the Cowboys keep winning and clinch the division with a couple of weeks left if they might back him off a little bit down the stretch.

New York Giants (6-5)

Ian O'Connor thinks Tom Coughlin's job is in jeopardy if the Giants don't recover from their three-game losing streak and finish the season strong. I guess it's possible, but you know where I come down on this. I think the Giants have overachieved, given the roster Coughlin was handed, and I don't understand how this is his fault.

Ralph Vacchiano takes a look at the missing Giants pass rush, which was so critical to their early-season success but now has just five sacks and 14 quarterback hits in its past four games. I asked Justin Tuck after the game if offenses were doing more to keep the Giants' defensive linemen off of quarterbacks lately, and he made it clear that they are. I don't know what the answer is for that, though. They seem loath to blitz because they're already not great in coverage and don't want to take manpower away from the back end. The defense only works when that front four is beating blockers, and right now, for whatever reason, they're not doing it.

Philadelphia Eagles (4-7)

Les Bowen wonders if some jobs that aren't coaching jobs are on the line over the Eagles' final five games -- i.e., whether the front office might consider roster changes instead of or in addition to coaching changes based on the way certain players perform and have performed so far. I've been inclined to believe Andy Reid comes back and tries again with a roster they all believed was good enough to do great things this year. But I guess Les has a point that it's possible to play your way out of town from this situation. May or may not be thinking about a guy whose name rhymes with "ShmeSean Shmackson."

Jeff McLane takes up the question of why the Eagles don't use LeSean McCoy more ... in verse! Hey, maybe it'll catch someone's attention.

Washington Redskins (4-7)

Mike Shanahan said the Redskins are going to stick with Roy Helu at running back after Helu's breakout performance Sunday. I'll believe it when I see it, but Shanahan sure does seem excited about his rookie back.

Couple of injuries came out of the Redskins' first victory in two months. Defensive end Stephen Bowen has a torn knee ligament but apparently might be able to play anyway. And fullback Darrel Young has a concussion, which could keep him out Sunday. But the Redskins are actually kind of deep at fullback, which is unusual in this day and age, and could plug in veteran Mike Sellers.

NEW ORLEANS -- A couple of thoughts on the overmatched New York Giants' third loss in a row:

What it means: The Giants are playing uphill now. They're a full game behind the first-place Cowboys with a couple of very tough games left on their schedule. The two remaining head-to-head matchups against Dallas mean they'll have a chance no matter what happens next week, but they've given away their division lead quickly, and the confidence and momentum they had three weeks ago after their big win in New England has faded.

No answers: The problem the Giants had on defense in this game had nothing to do with scheme or effort or energy or any of the things people usually like to jump on. This was all about personnel -- namely, the Giants' not having enough of it to compete with the Saints and all of their offensive weapons. With the weaknesses they have at linebacker and in the secondary, there's simply no way the Giants could cover Jimmy Graham and Marques Colston and Lance Moore and Darren Sproles and ... well, you get the picture. And when the Saints got close to the goal line in the second half and the receivers were covered, Drew Brees just ran the ball into the end zone himself. This was a mismatch from the start. There aren't a lot of defenses in the league that can handle the Saints' offense even when they're at full strength. The Giants' defense is not and hasn't been since training camp, and it showed up big time Monday night.

Manning can't do it all: Once again, the Giants could do absolutely nothing in the run game. They are, statistically, the worst running team in the league, and they did nothing to change that Monday. The offensive line is opening no holes, Brandon Jacobs can't get yards around the edge anymore and Ahmad Bradshaw is still out with his foot injury. The complete absence of a run game has forced quarterback Eli Manning to carry the Giants' offense, and while he's done a good job of that for most of this season, they can't keep asking him to do everything. Manning hurt himself with an interception in the end zone in the first quarter. But while the Giants were able to move the ball for most of the night, and Manning did finally connect with Victor Cruz for a 72-yard touchdown once the game was out of hand, the Saints were able to get the stops they needed to get because they always knew Manning was going to have to throw.

Bright spots? Sure. There were a couple. Cruz has emerged as a remarkably serious threat at the wide receiver position. He had a monster game even aside from the long touchdown catch -- finishing the night with nine catches for 157 yards and two touchdowns. Jason Pierre-Paul's tackle of Graham just short of the first-down marker on the Saints' early fake field goal was a brilliantly athletic play. And Jacobs did flash his old form on one play -- his 8-yard touchdown run, on which he barreled through defenders the way he used to. Not a good game for Jacobs overall, though.

Where's the pass rush? People keep asking why the Giants don't blitz more, but I think it's because they don't trust their coverage units to play short-handed. So they need to get pressure with their front four to have a chance to run their defense the way they want to run it. Lately, that front four hasn't been getting to the quarterback the way it was earlier in the season. And when Osi Umenyiora left this game with an ankle injury, things got worse. The Giants' defense needs to get sacks in order to stop anyone.

What's next: There's really only one way next week's game could be tougher than this one was, and that's if it were against the 11-0 Green Bay Packers. Unfortunately for the Giants, it is. The good news for them is that at least they'll be home for that game, which is Sunday afternoon.

NEW ORLEANS -- When the Saints tried a fake field goal at the end of their very productive opening drive, you had to figure something was up. And to the chagrin of the New York Giants, that "something" was the Saints' belief that they'd be able to move the ball at will all night on the Giants' defense. The remainder of the first half justified that thinking, as the Saints rolled up 354 total yards of offense and took a 21-3 lead into halftime.

What went wrong? Well, just about everything. The Giants' pass rush, such a key to their 6-2 start and their big win in New England, has disappeared a bit over the past few games. They can't afford to blitz, since it leaves them exposed in coverage, and so the whole defense relies on their ability to get pressure with their front four. For whatever reason, they're not doing that Monday night, and the result is a mismatch between the Giants' linebackers and defensive backs against the dazzling array of passing-game weapons at Drew Brees' disposal.

Can Corey Webster cover Marques Colston? Sure. But even if he completely blankets him (which he hasn't, by the way) and even if Aaron Ross can stay with Jimmy Graham (which he hasn't, by the way), the Giants still need to account for Darren Sproles, Lance Moore, Devery Henderson, Robert Meachem ... you get the idea. The Giants' talented secondary players could all do the best job they possibly can to take key players out, but somebody's always going to be open for the Saints. Brees completed passes to six different people in the first half, and a lot of them were just too easy.

The Giants aren't playing very well on defense. Ross, for instance, had a major brain cramp when he decided to give Graham a cushion on a play that was run from the Giants' five-yard line. Brees spotted it in an eyeblink and hit Graham for an easy touchdown. But the overwhelming issues are personnel deficiencies. Injuries in the secondary and at linebacker have been major issues for the Giants to overcome since training camp. During the first half of the season, they were overcoming them. Lately, not so much.

On offense, the Giants have moved the ball well against the Saints, collecting 200 total yards in the first half. But Eli Manning threw an interception in the end zone at the end of one drive, and the complete lack of the running game as a legitimate threat is forcing him to have to complete very precise passes in tight coverage. He's done it, for the most part, with the help of receivers Victor Cruz and Hakeem Nicks. But that's a tough way to have to play all night.

As for the interception, yeah, he underthrew the ball. But I'm not sure tight end Jake Ballard would have caught up to the pass had he led him with it. And I think Ballard could have done a better job of fighting Will Herring for the ball, so I'm not putting that one completely on Eli.

The problem is, the Giants' offense is putting everything completely on Eli, as it has all season. And at some point, somebody else is going to have to do something to win them one of these games.

As you get ready for the "Monday Night Football" game against the New Orleans Saints on ESPN, here's one reason for New York Giants fans to feel good and one reason for concern:

Feeling good: The Giants' defense relies on disruption, and the Saints are not immune to being disrupted. If the Giants' edge pass rushers can get to Drew Brees, they could rattle a Saints team that has been a bit more prone to turnovers than those of recent vintage. The Giants will need to play a clean game and avoid turnovers, which they are capable of doing, and then take advantage of whatever turnovers they can force with their aggressive up-front defense.

Cause for concern: The Saints have two very dangerous mid-range passing game targets in gigantic tight end Jimmy Graham and elusive running back Darren Sproles. Brees can find them quickly, which could be his best defense against the pass rush, and they can make some plays against the weak spots in the second level of the Giants' defense. It's hard to imagine how the Giants will cover Graham effectively, and while they've been better lately against between-the-tackles running backs, they've struggled a fair bit with opposing screen games, which is where Sproles can get them.

A bit chillier than expected, but otherwise it looks like a fine morning here in New Orleans, where tonight the New York Giants will take on the Saints in a Monday Night Football matchup on ESPN. Lots of people here have been expressing great confidence about the Saints' chances in this game. I just did a radio hit with a host who was cackling about how badly the Giants are going to get abused by Drew Brees, Jimmy Graham, Darren Sproles and Roman Harper. Of course, I told the guy I have no idea what's going to happen since I always pick the Giants game wrong. He couldn't hear me, I don't think, over the cackling.

Anyway, we'll have a ton of coverage, as I'm sure you would expect. ESPNNewYork.com will be in the house tonight, as will NFC South blogger Pat Yasinskas. You can check out our Monday Night HQ page, which will be updated throughout the day with various stories and angles about the game. And I'll be blogging and live-chatting from the Superdome this evening with Pat, Matt Williamson and others.

Meanwhile, nice story here from Kimberly Martin of Newsday, who spent some time down here last week with Chad Jones, the Giants' 2010 third-round draft pick who was nearly killed in a car accident a year and a half ago, and is trying to rehab so he can one day realize his dream and play for the Giants. Jones will be on the Giants' sideline tonight, and the New Orleans native and LSU alum is not remotely torn as to which team he's rooting for.

Hey, you know how we do predictions on Fridays? Well, I'm looking at the schedule and it turns out I'm going to have to do at least one of this week's predictions today. Wednesday. Chew on that with your links.

Dallas Cowboys

Todd Archer thinks the Cowboys should put in a waiver claim on recently waived Denver Broncos quarterback Kyle Orton, in part to keep him away from the Bears, with whom they could be competing for a playoff spot, but also for other reasons including depth at the sport's most important position now and into the future.

Tony Romo is 4-0 with 12 touchdowns and two interceptions in his career on Thanksgiving Day games. He missed last year's because of his injury, but he does go in on a roll this year.

New York Giants

I think we're all looking forward to the part of the week when the Giants start looking ahead to the Saints game and stop venting their anger over Sunday's loss to the Eagles. On Tuesday, it was Antrel Rolle's turn to take to the airwaves and talk about how much that loss ticked him off. Just a thought, but if they'd managed to be this angry and annoyed about the Eagles before the game... well, whatever.

The Giants' pass rush says it will be re-focused this week after picking up just five sacks in its past three games. Drew Brees says he's not going to take the Giants' pass rush lightly. The Giants need more of a pass rush than they got Sunday night if they're going to have a chance against Brees on Monday Night.

Philadelphia Eagles

Bob Ford said don't buy the Eagles-are-still-in-the-playoff-hunt narrative, mainly because a team that has shown no propensity to win games when it matters shouldn't be counted on to win five or six of its remaining six. I also kind of like the point Bob raises at the beginning, that the Eagles really weren't playing under pressure Sunday night because the loss to Arizona killed their chances. Anyway, food for thought.

The Patriots say they'll prepare for "all three" Eagles quarterbacks this week and hope that they get some clue later in the week as to which one they'll actually see Sunday. I'm betting it's Vince Young, but I don't know anything more than I did Monday, so stay tuned.

Washington Redskins

So the Tashard Choice Era in Washington didn't last long. The Redskins cut Choice and brought back rookie Evan Royster, leading some to wonder if the only reason they signed Choice in the first place was in case he could tell them secrets about the Cowboys in advance of Sunday's game. Could be.

Don't be surprised if Royster gets into some games. As John Keim discusses in his "five questions," the Redskins need to start finding answers in the run game or else the offense won't work the way it's supposed to. And Ryan Torain as starter and Roy Helu of change-of-pace back aren't making it work right now.

Tom Brady or Peyton Manning? It's the debate of the moment in today's NFL. Which superstar quarterback is the best? Who, between that pair of excellent, future Hall of Fame signal-callers, would you pick if you had the choice? That's not the question that was asked of our Power Rankings panel this week, but it turned out to be the one we answered.

Yes, after weeks upon weeks of power-ranking everything we could think of in the NFL, we've decided to throw all qualifiers and designations out the window and make it very simple: Who are the best players in the league?

As was the case when our panel was asked to rank the league's top quarterbacks, Brady beat out Manning for the top spot in this week's power rankings. Six of the eight NFL bloggers polled ranked Brady No. 1 overall, and the two who didn't -- Mike Sando and Paul Kuharsky -- ranked him second behind Manning. The top four players in our rankings and seven of the top 10 (of the top 11, technically, since Michael Vick and Andre Johnson tied for the No. 10 spot) all play the same position -- quarterback -- which says a lot about the way we value that position.

"Quarterback is the most significant position on the field and can make the difference between a lopsided losing record and the playoffs," said AFC East blogger Tim Graham, whose ballot had quarterbacks in each of the first seven spots and eight of 10 overall. "It takes a truly special running back or defensive player to outweigh the importance of a quarterback. For example, Adrian Peterson is a sensational player. But without Brett Favre producing at quarterback, Peterson couldn't carry the Vikings to the playoffs."

So the question then became which quarterback was the best. The debate these days seems to be squarely between Manning and Brady, though two of our eight bloggers did rank Manning third on this week's list. We'll get to them in a minute. We'll start with the majority opinion -- that Brady is the best player in the league right now.


I was one of the six who ranked Brady in the top spot, and the main reason was that I think Brady has attained a level of excellence in New England that's beyond what Manning has been able to attain in Indianapolis. Brady's accomplishments in 2007, when he combined with Randy Moss to set all kinds of offensive records and went undefeated until losing the Super Bowl to the Giants, were all-time legendary. But what people may not realize (perhaps because of the ludicrous level at which Brady excelled that year) is that the past two seasons have been the second-best and third-best statistical seasons of Brady's career. If Brady hadn't hurt his knee in the first game of the 2008 season and missed the rest of that year, it's very possible he would be on the kind of run right now that would make a Brady-Manning debate seem silly.

After the Patriots traded Randy Moss in the middle of 2010, the question was whether they were giving up on the season. What they were doing instead was committing to a midseason overhaul of the offense that wouldn't have been possible without the confidence they had in Brady to manage it. All Brady did was muster the second-best completion percentage and second-highest touchdown-pass total of his career while throwing just four interceptions and winning at least 14 games for the fourth time.

Not everybody agreed, however.

"Manning is simply asked to do more than any player in the league is asked to do," Kuharsky said. "He's superb at it. I love Brady. But Manning can do more, is asked to do more, and has to do more. Jim Caldwell is an OK coach so far. Bill Belichick is an all-time great. The guy making up the gap in order to have the Colts stay in range of the Patriots is Manning."

But the Colts really weren't in range of the Patriots this year, and for that reason Manning's star has dimmed in the eyes of a couple of our panelists. NFC North blogger Kevin Seifert ranked Aaron Rodgers No. 2 and Manning No. 3. And NFC South blogger Pat Yasinskas ranked Saints quarterback Drew Brees in that No. 2 spot ahead of Manning.

"I'm not trying to diminish Peyton in any way. He's going to be a first-ballot Hall of Famer. But, if you look at his numbers and Brees' numbers over the last three or four years, they're similar and, in some ways, Brees' numbers are better," Yasinskas said. "Brees and Manning each have won one Super Bowl title. My argument is that, right now, Brees is even more valuable to the Saints than Manning is to the Colts. Times change and circumstances change. But right now I think Brees is the perfect quarterback for the Saints and is in the perfect situation with their offensive system and coaching staff. In fact, I considered voting for Brees No. 1 overall, but couldn't quite bring myself to rank him ahead of Tom Brady."

Steelers safety Troy Polamalu, who came in first in the defensive player power rankings, ranked fifth on the overall list. AFC North blogger James Walker ranked Polamalu fourth, and Seifert ranked him fifth. Walker's ballot was the most generous overall to defensive players, as he ranked Polamalu fourth, Cowboys pass rusher DeMarcus Ware fifth, Jets cornerback Darrelle Revis eighth and 49ers linebacker Patrick Willis ninth.

Walker and Kuharsky (who ranked him 10th) were the only ones who ranked Ware at all, and Kuharsky seemed a little chapped about it.

"If we rate these quarterbacks so highly, how can we not rate the guy we said was tops at disrupting quarterbacks highly too," Paul asked. "Makes no sense. I had him too low at 10. For six of you guys to leave him off entirely dents your collective credibility. Next I imagine you'll say the E Street Band isn't the all-time best backing band."

Paul is grouchy.

"I value pass-rushers, and no player has more sacks the past two seasons than DeMarcus Ware (26.5)," Walker said. "Getting to the quarterback is the best way to combat the league's increasing number of pass-happy offenses, and no one does it better right now than Ware."

The highest-ranked offensive player who wasn't a quarterback was Peterson, who came in sixth after being named on five of eight ballots. Sando, Walker and AFC West blogger Bill Williamson left the Minnesota running back off their ballots -- the third time in three tries that Williamson has ranked Peterson lower than most of the rest of us did.

"This is a quarterback league and that's how I built my top 10," Williamson explained. "There were only three non-quarterbacks on my top 10. After I constructed the quarterback rankings, I went to the best available non-quarterbacks, and the list was quite short. But to reiterate, this is the top 10. The best of the best. I think Peterson is probably a top-15 guy and that’s pretty good in a league of 1,800-plus professionals."

Pretty good indeed. But as Bill said, it's a quarterback league. And for that reason, the debate about the best player in the league came down, once again, to Peyton Manning vs. Tom Brady.

So Tony Romo got married last weekend, which means there's at least one person in this world who'd prefer to see him hand the ball off as much as possible. Whether coach Jason Garrett agrees with the new Mrs. Romo could determine a lot about the Dallas Cowboys' 2011 season (assuming there is one).

The Cowboys had decent success under Garrett once he became head coach at the midway point of the 2010 season. They went 5-3 to help Garrett keep the job full time. They did it all without Romo, who got hurt in Week 7, but their second-half success had less to do with the job Jon Kitna did in Romo's place than with a rather dramatic philosophical shift in the offensive game plan.

In the first eight games of the 2010 season, with Wade Phillips as their head coach, the Cowboys ran the ball 169 times and threw 326 passes. In Garrett's eight games as head coach, the Cowboys had 259 rush attempts and 250 pass attempts. Because Romo wasn't there? Sure, maybe. But it worked. They were 4-0 in games in which they had more run plays than pass plays (all four under Garrett). You don't need me to do the math to tell you that means they were 2-10 when they passed more than they ran.

If Garrett was paying attention (which I must assume he was), the Romo injury may have shown him the way back to consistent offensive success. Just because Romo returns in 2011 doesn't mean they should put the ball in his hands and let him air it out to Miles Austin and Dez Bryant anytime he wants. Romo's talent has been a toxic temptation for Dallas in recent years. When he's on, it's easy for the Cowboys to forget that their strength is in their running game, and that they're at their best when they commit to keeping it on the ground.

The question, you say, then becomes one of specifics. Who from the Cowboys' stable of talented running backs should get the ball the most? Who's the "starter?" Who's the "lead running back?" It's a popular question that results either from long-held formulaic preconceptions, fantasy roster concerns or both. But if I were Garrett, my very easy answer would be: "Who cares?"

Felix Jones got most of the carries over the final eight games of 2010, but there were only two games in which he got more than 15. Tashard Choice had his moments, and there were times when Marion Barber looked healthy and useful again as well. The point, as it has been for the past couple of seasons with the Cowboys, is that all of the backs are good. Each brings a different skill set to the position and the offense functions best when Garrett and the coaching staff are rotating them in and out of situations where they fit best.

The bell cow running back is an endangered species. Only seven NFL running backs averaged 20 carries per game in 2010, and only six in each of the previous two seasons. None of the backs on the Cowboys' roster is Adrian Peterson or Steven Jackson or Michael Turner. None is going to hold up physically under that kind of workload, and frankly none will attain peak effectiveness if worked too hard.

So if you're Garrett, whenever you're allowed to talk to your players again, you sit down with Jones, Choice, DeMarco Murray and Barber (if he's still on the roster), and you tell them how it's going to be. You tell them they're all going to play, but none is going to play as much as Chris Johnson plays. You tell them to trust you -- that you believe in each of them, and that you're determined to make sure each gets his time in the spotlight.

You get them to buy into the idea that this is the way the NFL works now -- that running back is becoming a more specialized position, where different backs with different skills make different kinds of plays depending on the situation. You sell them on the idea that this is a way to make their careers last longer. You tell them the Cowboys are a running team now, but that there's no lead back and they're all in this together, as teammates and equals. Heck, you make up T-shirts if you like, with a catchy slogan they can use as a rallying cry.

And then, if you're Garrett, you go out and make it work. You take the opportunity to set the tone for the way the ball is run in the new NFL. You take that creative offensive mind we've all been hearing about for so many years and design creative ways to utilize the varied talents of your running backs. Romo and Austin and Bryant will still make their highlight-reel plays, but if the plan works, and the Cowboys are winning games, the midseason stories will all be about the run game and the way the coaches are making it happen.

It happened two years ago in New Orleans, remember? Drew Brees got the headlines, but the Super Bowl-winning Saints had the sixth-most rushing yards in the league without a single back reaching 800. That team could be Garrett's model, but he doesn't even need to look back that far. The offense he ran for the final eight games of the 2010 season will work just fine. And that offense ran the ball more than it threw it.

San Francisco 49ers linebacker Patrick Willis, the final NFC West man standing in the race to grace the "Madden 12" cover, fell from consideration after Michael Vick rolled to a 61-39 percentage victory over him in the latest balloting.

While Vick won comfortably, Willis commanded a higher percentage than Drew Brees, who suffered a 62-38 percentage defeat to Adrian Peterson in the other quarterfinal.

The Vick-Peterson winner faces the Aaron Rodgers-Peyton Hillis winner for the right to suffer a significant injury in 2010, or something like that.

A consolation prize for Willis: high praise from Ray Lewis.

Even in a lockout, New Orleans quarterback Drew Brees is still taking hits.

This time it’s from Hall of Fame linebacker Sam Huff, who previously took some shots at Brees back in 2009. That came after Brees, a member of the NFL Players Association's executive committee said some of the demands from former players weren’t warranted.

“There’s some guys out there that have made bad business decisions,” Brees said then. “They took their pensions early because they never went out and got a job. They’ve had a couple divorces and they’re making payments to this place and that place. And that’s why they don’t have money. And they’re coming to us to basically say ‘Please make up for my bad judgment.’

“In that case, that’s not our fault as players.”

Huff ripped Brees at the time and he did it again Monday. In a letter Huff sent to the Washington Post, he didn’t hold back his venom for Brees.

“I was always taught that if a person could not say something good about someone, anyone subject to attention, they should keep their mouth shut,’’ Huff wrote. “I have a struggle living up to that standard; especially when it comes to Drew Brees, I let it all hang out. He seems to belong to that group of younger generation who left their NFL history books at home.

Huff’s letter then points out that he worked in the hotel industry for 27 years after his retirement from football. Huff then veers way off the point of the whole matter and lists in detail his impressive credentials as a player. Then, he really ripped into Brees personally.

“I think I know enough about the game to say something is wrong when I think it is wrong,’’ Huff said. “I am not one of those retired players who, as Drew Brees insinuates, has begged for money, and I do not need to. However, I know about the players of the 50’s and 60’s, and they gave everything imaginable to make the game what it is today. Some of those players need help from the NFLPA. They deserve it, and Drew Brees needs better credentials before he makes such derogatory statements about those players.’’

Listen, I totally respect what Huff did as a player. But I also think Brees has built some pretty strong credentials and will continue to do so. When all is said and done, Brees will be in the Hall of Fame.

The real point here is Brees’ original comments about some retired players being in dire straits because they made mistakes and had to take their pensions early. Huff said he’s not one of those guys and that’s great for him and I think he’s in the majority.

But Brees’ original statement had some validity. There are some former players out there who have been very vocal about getting their pensions increased. Some of them were great players and made very good money (at least relatively speaking at the time they were playing) and they’ve run into financial trouble long after their playing careers.

I know one guy who took his pension in his early 40s because he was broke after a series of bad business decisions. He spends his time now selling rubber bands, signing autographs at card shows and making lots of noise about how former players should get more money.

I do believe the league and the union have some responsibility to former players, particularly those with health issues stemming from their playing days. Many others who were wise with their money all along should be able to get along just fine with a pension that's far better than most workers who retired from real-world jobs. But I also think Brees had a valid point when he said it’s not the responsibility of current players to make up for bad judgment by some former players.

Brees wasn't talking about Huff. Maybe Huff shouldn't be talking about Brees.