ESPN NFL

» AFC Scenarios: East | West | North | South » NFC: East | West | North | South

Yes, the start of training camps is two months away, but it’s never too early to consider the coming season. A look at the best-case and worst-case scenarios for the Cowboys in 2012.

Dream scenario (12-4): The issue in Dallas is the extent to which the defense improves. If the improvement remains incremental, they'll lose some games they should win and have to scrap to stay in the division race. But if the defense takes a dramatic step forward in its second year under defensive coordinator Rob Ryan and with Brandon Carr and Morris Claiborne having been brought in to upgrade the secondary, the Cowboys become a Super Bowl contender quite quickly. In the Cowboys' dream scenario, Tony Romo has another big year at quarterback, Miles Austin and DeMarco Murray stay healthy and Dez Bryant takes a big developmental step forward of his own, using his considerable physical ability to dominate matchups in other teams' secondaries and the end zone. The new guys on the offensive line tighten things up in the interior, the move back to right tackle makes Doug Free more comfortable and Tyron Smith transitions seamlessly to left tackle. And in the dream scenario, the improvements in the secondary help the defensive front seven get more pressure on the quarterback, with outside linebacker Anthony Spencer playing the way he did in December 2009 and DeMarcus Ware playing like ... well, like he always does.

Nightmare scenario (6-10): The Cowboys' nightmare scenario, as is the case with anyone's, includes injuries. In this scenario, Austin and Bryant struggle to stay healthy, and the team actually does find itself missing the surprisingly effective replacement Laurent Robinson provided in 2011. Murray also gets banged-up, forcing them to rely again on Felix Jones and little else at running back. Claiborne struggles, as young corners often do, to adjust to the speed and intensity of the NFL game, and Spencer muddles along again, content to be a pretty good but not great player opposite Ware. In the nightmare scenario, Romo has a bad year riddled with turnovers and the kind of inconsistency that gives his critics actual evidence for their criticism, and he raises legitimate questions about how much longer the Cowboys will remain committed to him. The nightmare scenario includes a slow start against a very tough-looking early portion of the schedule and sees the Cowboys succumb to the tension and negativity that's always so quick to cling to them in times of trouble. And no, because you're asking, I don't think that even the nightmare scenario puts Jason Garrett on the hot seat. Jerry Jones loves that guy.

The appeal of NFL-imposed cap reductions to the Washington Redskins ($36 million) and Dallas Cowboys ($10 million) has ended. Arbitrator Stephen Burbank dismissed their claims today -- for reasons described below -- and the teams have raised the white flag, issuing a joint statement accepting the decision. Interestingly, the two NFL owners who enjoy a good fight the most -- Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder -- have decided to go quietly here, choosing to use this as a chip for political capital down the road.

The NFL claimed the teams gained competitive advantage by maneuvering cap money into the uncapped 2010 year, clearing the deck for future spending without encumbrances from bloated contracts of Albert Haynesworth, DeAngelo Hall, Miles Austin and others. Were the teams given a chance to argue, they would have emphasized that there were no written warnings against their conduct, and that the contracts were approved upon submission to the NFL management council (NFLMC). However, they will have no such chance, as the case was dismissed.

Commissioner power

Burbank rejected the teams’ arguments that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell was not authorized to act on behalf of the NFLMC, the unit of the NFL that gave strident verbal warnings about their cap maneuvers and suggested discipline. Burbank intimated -- but did not expressly hold -- that the articles and bylaws of the NFLMC contemplate the commissioner acting as an agent for them. Thus, the commissioner’s powers may extend past the playing field into the contract and cap decisions made by teams and their ownership.

NFLPA on board

The March 11 letter announcing the reduction (reallocation letter) was executed by both Goodell and NFLPA chief DeMaurice Smith. Smith was agreeable as long as league-wide cap room remained the same, with the $46 million reallocated to the other 28 teams (the Saints and Raiders were denied reallocation because of similar, but lesser violations). The union’s buy-in -- forged with assurances from the NFL that the team cap number in 2012 would not dip below that of 2011 -- was a factor in Burbank’s dismissal.

Teams on board

With the NFLPA signing off, the March 27 resolution by 29 NFL teams (the Bucs abstained) to ratify the reallocation letter became, in Burbank’s eyes, a valid amendment to the collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, the Cowboys’ and Redskins’ claims of unilateral changes in the cap and collusion by other teams were denied. The key line from the decision reads in part: “the March 27th Resolution effectively ratified the Reallocation Letter, which therefore is binding on the Redskins and Cowboys as an amendment to the CBA.”

Thus, Burbank essentially gave his blessing to two agreements that served to bind and penalize the Redskins and Cowboys without them being a party to either. Commissioner power is strengthened again, 28 teams have additional cap room, and the NFLPA protects its players’ cap room league-wide. Everyone is satisfied except, of course, those two owners.

Something tells me that -- although they are accepting the decision -- they won’t soon forget this episode.

Welcome to the weekend, and to the weekend mailbag, where I try to round up some of your more interesting questions from the week and answer them the best I can. We shall get right to it.

Dave from Brookfield, Conn., would have picked left tackle Will Beatty for the New York Giants' entry in Friday's "Pressure Point" series. I went with Ahmad Bradshaw, as you can see if you click on that link.

Dan Graziano: That's a great call, Dave, and probably a better one than Bradshaw. The offensive line's play (particularly as a run-blocking unit) improved dramatically last year after Beatty's eye injury knocked him out for the season. And while that might have been a coincidence or the result of other factors, it did happen, and questions do still remain about Beatty after he struggled in his first season as the Giants' starting left tackle. The Giants still believe in Beatty and will continue to give him the opportunity to show he can do the job, but they're not convinced yet, and if he struggles again it could be a position they have to address moving forward beyond 2012.

---

Matt from San Diego asks: "Assuming Fletcher Cox has a solid rookie year, could the Philadelphia Eagles have the best [defensive] line in the league?"

DG: There are some great ones out there, Matt, including the one that's up the highway in N.J. defending the Super Bowl title. But yeah, the Eagles have a remarkable depth of talent on their line. They have the great bookend pass-rushers in Trent Cole and Jason Babin, a versatile defensive tackle in Cullen Jenkins and plenty of depth behind the starters inside and out. They drafted Cox because they believed he could be an impact pass-rusher from the get-go at the defensive tackle spot, and they have their fingers crossed that 2010 first-round pick Brandon Graham can finally stay healthy and contribute to the defensive end rotation. If they get contributions from Cox and Graham, the Eagles will be in that discussion.

---

David from Fairfax, Va., (and a number of other people) have challenged my repeated answers to the question of whether the Washington Redskins' Robert Griffin III could have a rookie year similar to the one Cam Newton had for Carolina in 2011. I don't believe they're similar players, but part of my stock answer has been, "He doesn't have a Steve Smith in his wide receiver corps." David agrees, but thinks the overall talent level of the Redskins' wide receivers is better than what the Panthers had last year behind Smith.

DG: It is, David, and Griffin will have a wider array of options than Newton had last year. My point is that the Newton-Smith hookup provided the Panthers with a number of long, explosive plays that helped drive up Newton's incredible rookie-season numbers. Because of the lack of anything that approximates that, I don't see Griffin approximating Newton's rookie numbers. But Griffin could have a very excellent and successful rookie season without coming close to Newton's numbers, which were unprecedented. I think there are a number of differences between the two players, though, and the way they play. And I think you'll see what I mean once you watch Griffin operate a multi-faceted offense that isn't likely to rely on him to do quite as much as the Panthers relied on Newton to do last year.

---

Daniel in San Antonio, Texas, disagrees with the notion that the Dallas Cowboys can replace No. 3 wide receiver Laurent Robinson with some sort of committee of what they have on the roster already. To make his point, Daniel asks: "How many games over the last two years have Miles Austin and Dez Bryant missed due to injury?"

DG: Well, Austin missed six games last year and none the year before. Bryant missed one last year and four the year before. So the answer to your question is 11, and your point is well taken. Robinson really exploded onto the Cowboys' scene last year because of how well he played in place of Austin during Austin's hamstring-injury problems. If Austin and Bryant and Jason Witten are healthy, there's really not much need for a No. 3 wide receiver in Dallas. But even if Austin (or Bryant) should have to miss games again, the Cowboys could surely get by with a replacement who doesn't produce the way the starter did. Most teams do, when it comes to injury. Robinson was a surprise exceptional case, and because of the way he played he got more looks. If he hadn't looked as good as he did, those looks likely would have gone to Bryant or Witten, as they likely will if similar circumstances arise in 2012.

---

Finally, Justin from B-More has a procedural complaint. He thought doing the daily breakfast links according to the division standings during the season was fine. But as someone whose last name begins with Z, he has a long-held hatred of simple reversion to alphabetical order. He's also a Redskins fan, and doesn't like seeing his team listed last in the links every day.

DG: Your point is well taken, Justin, and in the interest of fairness, here is what I propose: From this point forward until the season starts and we do them in standings order again, I will change the order of the breakfast links every day from Monday through Thursday, so that each of the division's teams is listed first at least once per week. And I will devise some sort of reader contest to allow one reader to determine the Friday order each week. Something like, whoever sends me the best printable joke in the mailbag that Thursday, or whoever answers a trivia question first on Twitter. Details to follow, but the new system goes into effect Monday. We'll call it "The Justin from B-More Doctrine."

---

Enjoy the rest of your weekend, folks.

I have been writing for some time that there's no need to panic about the Dallas Cowboys' No. 3 wide receiver position just because Laurent Robinson caught 11 touchdowns last year and signed with Jacksonville. But ever since the first night of the draft, I have detected a burgeoning opinion among Cowboys fans that I am a moron who has no idea what he's talking about. You guys are subtle about it, but I can detect these things, in large part because I have not (to answer to several of your very polite mailbag questions) had a lobotomy.

So if you won’t take my word for it, I present the word of Mr. Todd Archer, the esteemed Cowboys writer for ESPNDallas.com, who made the case in a detailed piece Wednesday morning that the Cowboys can replace Robinson without having to find a guy to replace Robinson:

The No. 3 wide receiver on the Cowboys is really Tony Romo's fifth option offensively behind Jason Witten, Miles Austin, Dez Bryant and either DeMarco Murray or Felix Jones.

The Cowboys did not dial up a ton of plays specifically for Robinson last year.

His biggest plays came when coverage filtered to the other wideouts or to Witten (hello, 70-yard touchdown versus Philadelphia) or plays broke down. This isn't meant as a knock on Robinson, because he was terrific last year. He and Romo were simpatico when plays went haywire, and that takes skill, not time.

Just ask Roy Williams that.

The Cowboys don't need to replace Robinson's numbers with one guy.

This is a fine summary of the way the Cowboys were thinking about their No. 3 wideout situation last summer, after they cut Williams and before they found Robinson on the free-agent scrap heap. And it is because of the way things worked out last year that the Cowboys remain convinced they can approach the situation the same way this year. Had Robinson not come along and did what he did in 2011, the Cowboys' offense would have found a way to replicate his production. His most significant contribution, as Todd points out, was his stint as a reliable fill-in during the times Austin had to miss due to hamstring injuries. If they can keep Austin's hamstrings healthier this year, then they won't have a need for someone to do what Robinson did last year. And if they can't, they feel decent enough about their ability to fill in, even if they need more than one player to do it this time.

Of the Dallas Cowboys' late-round draft picks, the one that seems to be drawing the most attention right now is Virginia Tech wide receiver Danny Coale. I think it's because people have heard of him and because he plays a position at which the Cowboys have an opening. Laurent Robinson, the out-of-nowhere No. 3 wide receiver who caught 11 touchdown passes for the Cowboys in 2011, has moved on to Jacksonville, and the competition he left behind for that spot is somewhat uninspiring, which is why -- as Calvin Watkins writes -- the team's fifth-round draft pick may have a shot:

As it stands, Coale will battle Kevin Ogletree, Andre Holmes, Dwayne Harris and Raymond Radway for the two open receiver spots. The Cowboys could use five receivers in 2012 if needed. (We don't believe Dez Bryant and Miles Austin are in danger of not making the roster).

What I'm told about Coale by scouts (who like him a great deal) is that he knows how to get open, knows how to find the ball in traffic and has excellent hands. These would all seem to be great assets, but those same scouts caution that Coale is a bit undersized (6-feet, 200 pounds) and may struggle against the bigger, more physical defenders he's going to face as he adjusts to the NFL level. That's why I caution against expecting too much out of Coale too soon. He's a fifth-round pick, after all, and if he does make an impact as a rookie that'd be one heck of a story.

Some people have suggested to me on Twitter that Coale compares to Wes Welker. I think this is a lazy (and somewhat insulting) comparison to make, and I think it's made because Coale is white and not very big. Coale actually lists as three inches taller and 15 pounds heavier than Welker, who by the way is one of the best players in the entire league. If Coale does turn out to be even half as good as Welker, the Cowboys will have grabbed a huge steal in the fifth round. I doubt that even their most optimistic forecasts imagine that.

If we can put both feet on the ground about this for a moment, the odds are that Coale helps on special teams in 2012 and finds his way into the receiver mix here and there as he learns the pro game and adjusts to a new level of difficulty. If he makes good progress, you could be looking at a guy who becomes a reliable receiver for the Cowboys in 2013 or 2014, and that'd be excellent. If you find a starter in Round Five at any position, you've done something really impressive. But look, for example, at Bryant, a former first-r0under who's as skilled and physically dominant as any receiver in the league. He's still developing after two seasons as a starter. It takes time at that position.

My bet is still that the Cowboys add a veteran receiver to this mix before or during camp as the market begins to flood with them. The Redskins released Jabar Gaffney on Tuesday, and a short time later the Texans released Jacoby Jones. I don't know if either of those guys makes sense to or for the Cowboys, but the point is that there will be options, and opportunities to find the next Robinson if he doesn't turn out to currently live on the Cowboys' roster. As for Danny Coale, there's real potential there, but I think the best thing the Cowboys and their fans can do is to be patient and see what comes of it.

Todd Archer's column on ESPNDallas.com notes that the Dallas Cowboys' focus during the draft, as it has been for much of the offseason, was on the defensive side of the ball, and that it's an unusual thing for a team whose head coach is also the offensive coordinator. I would argue that the reason is because defense was clearly the Cowboys' biggest problem last season, and surely even an offensive-minded head coach like Jason Garrett would be able to see that, with or without a Princeton education.

But Archer's point is that the willingness of Garrett to allow this offseason to be taken over by defense speaks to his own confidence about his ability to lead the offense. He has reason to believe in skill-position players such as Tony Romo, Dez Bryant, Miles Austin and, if healthy, DeMarco Murray. And the addition of new offensive line coach Bill Callahan as well as a couple of free-agent offensive linemen should help address the biggest problem the offense had last season -- the line. Archer reaches the following conclusion:

With a healthy Romo (he played six games needing a painkilling injection for a broken rib), a healthy Bryant and healthy Austin (they suffered through quadriceps and hamstring injuries) and perhaps most important a healthy Murray, who had 789 yards in seven full games as the every-down back before suffering an ankle injury, the Cowboys' offense should be better in 2012.

That's what's Garrett is betting on. Those players … and himself.

I think this is a perfectly reasonable conclusion. If they get give Romo enough time to operate the offense, he has more than enough weapons at his disposal to do it at a high level. When Murray was healthy last year and running as the every-down back, it was one of the better offenses in the league. If the line play is improved (and it really only had one direction to go), then the offense is the least of Dallas' 2012 problems, and it's completely sensible for them to operate this way. That's why the big money this offseason has been spent on the defense (specifically cornerback), which is where the major improvement needs to happen.

My issue with the Cowboys' draft had nothing to do with its heavy focus on defense but rather what I consider a failure to maximize the value of the picks. I wrote plenty on this over the weekend and I'm sure I'll do so again. But at bottom, the standpoint that defense was a priority this offseason and in this draft was the appropriate one from which to approach things for the Cowboys. They correctly identified their problem. What remains to be seen is how well they did to address it.

Good and interesting insight in this story from Albert Breer on NFL.com about what, exactly, upset the other teams in the NFL about the way the Dallas Cowboys and the Washington Redskins spent their money in the uncapped 2010 season. The NFL stripped the Redskins of $36 million and the Cowboys of $10 million in salary cap space over the next two years, and those two teams have filed a grievance against the league and the NFLPA to dispute the punishment. But to this point, it has remained unclear what, exactly, the other teams felt they did wrong.

Albert writes that, by structuring the contracts of Miles Austin, Albert Haynesworth and DeAngelo Hall in such a way as to inflate 2010 base salaries and save money in future years, the Cowboys and Redskins inflated the franchise-player numbers for wide receivers, defensive tackles and cornerbacks. As a result, the Chargers had a hard time keeping Vincent Jackson, the Ravens were handcuffed by the contract they wanted to give Haloti Ngata and the Bengals were unable to keep Johnathan Joseph. For example:

Austin's contract was instrumental in pushing the receiver number from $9.5 million in 2010 to $11.3 million in 2011. San Diego franchised Vincent Jackson at the latter number in 2011. The leverage Jackson gained from having an $11.4 million tender made him difficult to sign to a long-term deal, and the resulting 2012 franchise figure -- by rule, 120 percent of the previous number, which came out to $13.7 million -- made it even harder to tag him again for the club.

So San Diego, which likely would've tagged Jackson again if the number had been more affordable, let Jackson walk. He signed a five-year, $55.6 million contract with the Buccaneers this offseason.

Many thanks to Albert for shining some light on what, exactly, the other owners found wrong with the way the Cowboys and the Redskins behaved in a year that was supposed to have no spending restrictions. The Cowboys and Redskins are arguing that there was no rule against what they did, and while that may be true, Giants owner and NFL management committee chairman John Mara said last month that all teams were warned that they could be punished if they did what these two teams did.

But for a couple of reasons, I continue to believe the teams that are complaining about this are full of it. First of all, commissioner Roger Goodell said at the owners' meetings last month that the reason for the penalties was that the teams in question had attempted to gain a competitive advantage in future years through their 2010 actions. But what Albert writes (on the league's own web site) is something quite different. Albert's reporting indicates that the reason the other teams got upset at the Cowboys and the Redskins was because their actions required them to spend more money than they wanted to spend to pay their own players. And if that's the case, then the artificial, unwritten guidelines the owners tried to put in place to control spending during the uncapped year were not an effort to maintain future competitive balance (as they have claimed publicly), but rather clearly an attempt to control player salaries.

Furthermore, it's important to remember that there never would have been an uncapped 2010 season -- or any reason to cut backroom deals to regulate spending therein -- if the owners hadn't decided to lock out the players in 2011 in an effort to restructure the CBA in a manner more favorable to themselves. Had they negotiated in good faith prior to 2010, they could have put a new CBA in place that would have imposed a salary cap and clear spending rules for that season. But because they had decided long before to impose a lockout strategy and not negotiate until they had the players backed up against the wall, the 2010 season arrived without a salary cap, as the prior CBA said it must if it were to be the final league year.

The entire concept of the uncapped 2010 season was an avoidable mess of the owners' own making. The lockout was an unnecessary act of pure greed, as evidenced by a new CBA that solved almost none of the competitive-balance issues raised by small-market owners. And the idea that the teams could whisper together behind closed doors about acting as though there was a cap when there wasn't and expect every owner to go along with the plan is (and always was) utterly foolish. The salary cap penalties against the Cowboys and Redskins are part of the fallout from the clumsy way in which the NFL's owners executed their negotiating strategy, and I continue to see no common-sense reason why those teams shouldn't expect to get some sort of restitution from the arbitrator.

I mean, when you miss 37 percent of the season with hamstring injuries, this kind of thing hardly qualifies as a shocking announcement. But Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Miles Austin says he wasn't in his best physical shape last year. From an interview Austin did with Men's Health, via Calvin Watkins of ESPNDallas.com, we have this:

"I'm feeling great right now, by the way," Austin said in a video interview for Men's Health magazine. "Right now I'm working with the trainers at our facility. I feel like last year, I wasn't prepared for the season in the way I should have been condition-wise, even though I looked and felt like it at the time. That's one thing I have to keep an eye on, to make sure I'm in the best physical shape I can be."

Yeah, man. When you're a professional athlete whose entire job and livelihood depend on attaining and delivering your best possible physical performance, and pretty much your only job for 349 days of the year is to exercise, then yeah. I would say that's something on which it's worth keeping an eye. But hey, everybody learns their lessons differently, I guess.

I don't have a lot else to say about this, except that it reminds me a little of last summer when Anthony Spencer told me he'd realized he hadn't been trying hard every day in practice, and that sometimes the things pro athletes say make me shake my head. I guess it's good that the Cowboys have guys who are so self-aware?

Have you seen what the New York Giants have been up to in free agency? No? Me neither, and I cover the division!

Ah, we kid, we kid. Jokes about the Giants' offseason inactivity are so 2011. It is what it is, as they say in places where Giants fans live, and after the way last season ended, there's no reason to think it's going to change. Those of us who ripped Giants general manager Jerry Reese for not doing enough to improve his team last summer (and yes, of course, I very much include myself) are full to bursting from all the crow we had to eat once Reese's bunch won the Super Bowl. And the Giants' uninspiring list of 2012 free-agent pickups to date -- let's call them Martellus and the Special Teamers -- isn't worth getting worked up over now that even the doubters understand the way the Giants look at the NFL world.

See, the issue last year was that those of us who criticized got caught up in the impatience that defines our times. My point, after watching the Giants stubbornly ignore immediate needs at every level of the draft and do nothing in free agency to address the exodus of seemingly important passing-game targets, was that their philosophy wasn't working. Although it was admirable that they were determined to stick to a plan about which they felt strongly, that plan had produced two straight years without a playoff appearance and was therefore fair game for questioning.

But Reese and the Giants were looking at the landscape more broadly, and that's to their credit. The Giants don't use the draft to address immediate needs. They believe that's a poor use of draft picks -- that rushing to plug a hole with a first-round or second-round pick reduces the value of those picks. The Giants view the draft as a means of building, augmenting and maintaining a deep roster -- the kind of roster that can withstand free-agent defections, plug holes from within and consistently challenge for a playoff spot. The kind of roster that, in the years when it does reach the playoffs, has what it takes to win postseason games and the Super Bowl.

The Giants don't view free agency as some huge shopping mall stocked with all kinds of desirable goodies. Sure, if they see someone they like who plays a position where they need help, they're not above making an aggressive move to get him. Antrel Rolle is a good example from two years ago. Last year, they targeted a center, David Baas, and got him. This year, they targeted a tight end, Martellus Bennett, and locked him up on the first day. But their approach in free agency is measured, focused and patient, and that's the way they believe it should be.

Patience is a hard sell in today's sports culture, where two years without a playoff appearance can feel like an eternity even if the people running the team are the same ones that brought you a Super Bowl title not long before. So last year, the Giants' front office found itself under attack for inactivity. But Reese insisted that inactivity was the right path. The Giants believe in their system, in their coaching staff and in the core of veterans in their locker room. Reese told everyone he'd had a 10-win team in 2010 that missed the playoffs and believed his 2011 team could be better by just enough to get in this time. Lots of us thought he was nuts.

To his credit, at the Super Bowl, Reese declined to accept the accolades. He pointed out more than once that his 2011 team had won only nine games -- one fewer than the previous year's team -- and that he found it funny that somehow he was a genius this time around. Again with the big-picture viewpoint. Reese know there's some good fortune involved -- that if the Eagles hadn't kicked away so many September games or if Miles Austin had caught that pass down the sideline late in the game in Dallas, the Giants very well could have been looking at three straight years without a playoff game. This NFL is a razor's-edge business, and one can do very little to control the placement of that fine line between success and failure.

But what the Giants do is position themselves the best they can to take advantage when fate smiles on them. They don't want their season to ride on the worthiness of a couple of big offseason signings. They don't want their season to rise and fall on the immediate readiness of their first-round draft pick. If the Giants get an opportunity, they want to know they have a roster, driven by gutsy, respected leaders like Tom Coughlin, Eli Manning and Justin Tuck that's deep and talented and experienced and driven enough to spot it and take advantage of it.

That's what last season was. The Giants weren't the best team in the NFL in 2011. For most of it, they weren't even close. But they may have been the toughest. And when the time came for that to matter -- for the toughness and the depth of their roster to deliver -- that's exactly what happened.

So here the Giants are again, sitting idly by while the rest of the league rushes out to grab free agents. Do they have some holes they could fill? Sure they do. Might not filling them cost them a game or two this season? Absolutely. But the Giants know who they are and what they have. And after winning a second Super Bowl title in five years, they feel very good about it. They could win the Super Bowl again next year. They could go 8-8 and miss the playoffs. But these are the Giants, and they know one year won't define them. It's a lesson that a lot of other teams -- and a lot of us who analyze and predict this league -- would do well to learn.

Good morning in the East, where spring has sprung early and the roster tinkering is in full swing. What will Wednesday bring? More signings? Another surprise trade? All we know for sure is it starts with links.

Dallas Cowboys

New Cowboys cornerback Brandon Carr said one of the things that convinced him to sign with Dallas was an in-person sales pitch from DeMarcus Ware, Jason Witten, Sean Lee and Miles Austin, all of whom attended the dinner at which the team's brass treated Carr at Cowboys Stadium on his free-agent recruiting visit. The $26.5 million guaranteed surely didn't hurt, either.

Troy Aikman says he thinks Tony Romo is already a better quarterback than he ever was, which surely comes as a surprise to those who wanted the Cowboys to sign Peyton Manning or wish they would trade Romo for Tim Tebow.

New York Giants

Ahmad Bradshaw says his fractured foot has healed completely and that he believes he can handle a workload similar to the one he had in 2010. That would be especially nice if his friend Brandon Jacobs finds work elsewhere, as it appears he will. But I'd still expect the Giants to bring in some veteran running back to help spell Bradshaw just in case.

I'm sick of banging my head against my desk every morning looking for a second Giants link. Nobody who covers or blogs about the Giants is writing anything right now unless the Giants sign someone or one of their guys signs somewhere else. Since that didn't happen Tuesday, there's nothing out there. Go ahead, check for yourselves. I'm open to suggestions. You guys tell me what the second Giants link should be. I can't find it.

Philadelphia Eagles

Jonathan Tamari likes the deal for linebacker DeMeco Ryans. And while Jonathan does bring up a couple of the reasons to wonder how they got him so cheap, the fact is it's an impossible deal to dislike. Ryans was a great player for Houston before his Achilles injury and will be nearly two full years removed from it (and still just 28 years old) when the 2012 season starts. Houston wasn't using him enough to justify what they were paying him, because they were taking him off the field in nickel situations in the sub packages in their new 3-4 defensive scheme. The Eagles saw a guy who was being undervalued by his team but would fill the biggest need on theirs, and they snagged him. Good for them. If it doesn't work out, they lost a fourth-round draft pick. But there's no doubt Ryan is better than anything they had at linebacker in 2011.

Players on the Eagles are excited about the move and players on the Texans are bummed out about it, as Les Bowen writes. That tells you a great deal.

Washington Redskins

Free-agent quarterback Josh Johnson, late of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, will visit the Redskins on Wednesday. When this news broke Tuesday night, people were asking why, and I don't see what the great mystery is. You need to be at least three-deep at quarterback, and Johnson as the No. 3 (or the No. 2, if he can pass Rex Grossman on the depth chart) seems like a heck of a lot better option than paying John Beck $1 million. Why not take a look? Quarterback is a position at which it's important to be as good and as deep as you can possibly be. And remember, as excited as everyone is about Robert Griffin III, he is going to be a rookie. He'll need good backups.

The Redskins also re-signed Kory Lichtensteiger, who was playing very well for them at left guard last year before blowing out his knee in that completely disastrous Week 6 loss to the Eagles in which everyone got hurt and Grossman got benched for Beck. They still need to upgrade at right tackle, and if Lichtensteiger isn't fully healthy they still need to be looking for help on the interior. But they were happy with what Lichtensteiger was giving them before his injury, so he's back.

You guys know I'm active on Twitter (@ESPN_NFCEast and, to a lesser extent, @DanGrazianoESPN). I'm there to answer whatever questions I can, and at times like these the activity is more intense than it is at other times of the year. So I'm on there in between blog posts to help out. You can ask questions, vent, call me names, whatever. I'm there for you.

Some of the questions I get on there become so frequent that they take on lives of their own and become worthy of their own posts. Such is the case, I feel, with the question of Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Laurent Robinson, who is making free-agent visits to places like Jacksonville and appears unlikely to return to Dallas.

To hear Cowboys fans on this topic, you'd think we were talking about the second coming of Jerry Rice. I mean, Robinson played very well for the Cowboys last year, and only three players in the league caught more touchdown passes, but I refuse to buy into the idea that replacing his production would become a major offseason priority for the Cowboys if and when he signs elsewhere.

Possible options for replacing Robinson include:

1. Throwing the ball to Jason Witten, Miles Austin and Dez Bryant more.

2. Finding a third wide receiver in the bargain bin, which is where they found Robinson last summer when no one else wanted him.

This isn't rocket science. Robinson became Tony Romo's favorite red zone target and ended up with 11 touchdown catches, but that doesn't mean Romo would be crippled in the red zone without him. Witten used to be his favorite red zone target, and there's no reason to think he can't be again. If they can keep Austin healthy and if Bryant (just 23 years old) continues his development, they won't need a No. 3 wide receiver to produce the way Robinson did. Robinson's production was a pleasant surprise, but it's not as though Romo and the Cowboys would have been lost without him.

The Cowboys need help on defense and on the offensive line. They're pretty well-stocked at receiver. Falling in love with Robinson and overpaying him off his first good season would be a free-agent gamble, and given their strengths and their needs, it's one the Cowboys would do well to let some other team make.

You guys want some answers on this deal where the Dallas Cowboys and Washington Redskins are losing millions in cap space for spending as much as they wanted in an uncapped year. I'm here for you. I have spoken to a couple of sources close to the situation, and this is what I have learned:

Q: What exactly did they do?

A: During the uncapped 2010 season, teams were repeatedly warned by the league not to structure contracts so that big money was assigned to 2010 in order to attain future-years cap relief. They were told there would be penalties if they did this. The Cowboys and the Redskins, to a greater extent than the league's other 30 teams, ignored these warnings and engaged in such behavior anyway. Miles Austin's contract with the Cowboys, which included a $17 million base salary in 2010, is being brought up as the prime example.

Q: How did they get caught?

A: The complaints against the Cowboys and the Redskins for engaging in perfectly legal behavior that violated no actual rules but only the collusive backroom dictates being issued by the league came not from the league office but from the other 30 teams, who were doing what they were told while the Cowboys and the Redskins were not. The other teams demanded action, since they were the good soldiers, and so the league decided it needed to take some.

Q: Why isn't the union challenging this?

A: While this behavior seems to fit the very dictionary definition of collusion, as multiple teams were engaged in discussions to limit the earning potential of their employees and prospective employees, do not expect it to be challenged in court. The decision today, in which the Redskins were docked $36 million in cap space and the Cowboys $10 million, is the result of a settlement between the NFL and the NFLPA. One reason the union has no problem with it is that the money lost to the Cowboys and Redskins is not taken out of the overall 2012 spending pool — each of 28 other teams gets $1.6 million extra in cap room, so there's no net loss league-wide. Another reason the union won't push on it is because they agreed, as part of the settlement of last year's Brady vs. NFL federal lawsuit, to drop all pending legal action against the league. That included their claims that the league engaged in collusion in 2010.

Q: Why is this happening now, the day before free agency?

A: The answer to that lies in the reason it took so long for the league to establish and announce this year's salary cap. The union must sign off on the cap before it is approved, and it obviously took issue initially with the idea of punishing teams for spending money in an uncapped year. But the league was toying with the idea of lowering this year's salary cap, and used this issue as a bargaining chip with the union. Basically, if the union agreed to the punishment for the Redskins and Cowboys, the cap would be $120.6 million, as it is now. But if they refused, the league was prepared to make the cap lower. I don't know by how much, but say for the sake of argument they wanted to drop it to $116 million per team. That'd have been a total of $128 million when spread across 32 teams — a significant loss to the players if they agreed to it.

More to come on this, of course, but that should help answer some of your questions for now.

Dallas Cowboys fans, by and large, seem to want their team to re-sign wide receiver Laurent Robinson. He played very well for the team during Miles Austin's injury absences and even after Austin was back. Tony Romo threw 11 of his 31 touchdown passes to Robinson. Only two wide receivers (and one tight end) in the entire league caught more touchdowns. He says he wants to come back. The team says it wants to have him back. It all makes sense, in the abstract.

But as Todd Archer points out, due to the rules and conditions under which Robinson was signed last year, the Cowboys can't re-sign him before the new league year and full-on free agency open March 13. They can talk contract parameters with his agent, but Todd also wisely points out that they probably don't want to give the agent a figure he can go out and shop:

"The conversation with him goes more like, 'What are you thinking and then we'll think about it,'" executive vice president Stephen Jones said.

So, theoretically, if there's a team out there that loves Robinson and thinks he fits its system and wants to throw a bunch of money at him on March 13, the Cowboys are probably going to lose him. While neither Austin nor Dez Bryant is extremely costly, the Cowboys have a lot of needs that are more pressing than No. 3 wide receiver. If Robinson is going to get good No. 2 wide receiver money from some other team, my guess is the Cowboys will let him go.

What will help them keep him is the potentially flooded wide receiver free-agent market. The odds are that Robinson isn't going to be able to cash in his breakout season to the same extent he might have if he weren't competing for teams' affections with the likes of Vincent Jackson, Marques Colston, Dwayne Bowe, Brandon Lloyd, Stevie Johnson, Robert Meachem, Reggie Wayne, Mario Manningham, Pierre Garcon, Mike Wallace, DeSean Jackson and Wes Welker.

It's possible the Cowboys and Robinson get something reasonable worked out and he returns as a very good No. 3 wide receiver. But if his price starts to go up much beyond that range, don't be surprised if they let him walk and just try and find next year's Robinson the same way they found last year's.

Yeah, I saw the story that Randy Moss wants to come out of retirement and play in the NFL again in 2012. And yeah, it's the offseason, so my first reaction was to do a post about whether he'd make sense for any of the teams in the NFC East. I'm not proud. It's content. It's a big name. It hits all four teams. And hey, you're reading it.

However, before we go any further, I must make one thing clear: I do not believe Randy Moss will ever play in the NFL again. The guy washed out with three different teams in 2010, couldn't find a job in 2011 and now, at the age of 35 and in a free-agent market flooded with good wide receivers in their primes, he thinks a team is going to take a chance on him? Agree to disagree, Randy. Agree to disagree.

That said, I have (as many of you are fond of pointing out) been wrong before. And so, if by some chance Moss can prove he still has enough speed to be a legitimate deep threat -- to get separation from defensive backs and perform as a difference-making downfield option for an offense, as he could not do in 2010 for three different teams -- would he make any sense in our division? My team-by-team ultra-fantastical hypothetical answers follow.

Dallas Cowboys: No. Not even a little. The Cowboys need a No. 3, first of all, and that's only if they let Laurent Robinson walk. If Dez Bryant and Miles Austin are healthy, Moss is an upgrade over neither one. And do you really want him around Bryant? No.

New York Giants: No. Not even a little. Go back and read the Cowboys answer and replace "Laurent Robinson" with "Mario Manningham" and replace "Dez Bryant and Miles Austin" with "Hakeem Nicks and Victor Cruz." No. Not a Giants kind of thing to do, this.

Philadelphia Eagles: Interesting, but only if they decide to move on from DeSean Jackson, as I believe they might. If Moss shows the deep-threat ability that made him such a weapon with Minnesota and New England at various points in his career, and if Jackson is out of the picture, the must-win-now-or-everyone's-getting-fired Eagles wouldn't be a ridiculous landing spot. Again, lot of "if"s, but don't be surprised to see this connection made again if Jackson isn't back.

Washington Redskins: The 2007-09 version of Moss is exactly what the Redskins need. But (a) this is the 2012 version, and (b) Moss doesn't respond well to being in losing environments. Even if he could flash that 07-09 form, the Redskins would have to be a lot more set at quarterback and offensive line than they are right now. And the quarterback would have to be a veteran like Peyton Manning or Kyle Orton and not a rookie or first-time starter like Robert Griffin III or Matt Flynn.

The Dallas Cowboys didn't see Laurent Robinson coming last summer, but thanks to Miles Austin's hamstrings and the speed with which he and Tony Romo developed a red zone rapport, Robinson became an important part of Dallas' offense. Now, he's an unrestricted free agent, and the team faces a difficult decision on what to do about him.

In the third installment of their position-by-position look at the Cowboys, ESPNDallas.com tackles the wide receivers. Bryan Broaddus acknowledges Robinson's contribution but "would not be surprised if the front office allows Robinson to walk."

He's made it clear that he wants to return to Valley Ranch and has indicated that the Cowboys wouldn't necessarily have to be the top bidders to keep him. What the Cowboys would be willing to pay for a No. 3 receiver who has proven he can be a quality fill-in starter isn't clear. If the Cowboys don't re-sign Robinson, they'll need to find another third receiver, whether it's in the draft or another free-agency bargain.

I remember No. 3 receiver being a concern for the Cowboys last August in training camp, and I remember talking to Bryan about this issue. At the time, we agreed that it was a small concern, in part because there was always a chance they could find a decent No. 3 wideout on the street (as they did) if they didn't like their internal options, and in part because of tight end Jason Witten's abilities as a receiver.

Witten this past season posted his lowest reception and yardage totals since 2006. I believe part of that was due to the emergence of Robinson, especially as a red zone option. I also think it had something to do with the Cowboys' offensive line struggles, which may have required Witten to spend more time as a pass-protector than a pass-catcher. It's entirely possible that, should the Cowboys let Robinson go, they can replace his production by throwing to Witten as much as they did in prior seasons. And if that's the case, internal options such as Jesse Holley or Raymond Radway might be sufficient replacements. Or they could find next year's Robinson in the free-agent bargain bin again.

The Cowboys need to spend money to upgrade the line and the secondary, and they could stand to spend some on a pass rush. If Austin and Dez Bryant can stay healthy, their concerns at wide receiver are small compared to those in other areas. So if Robinson wants more than No. 3 wide receiver money, or if he wants a long-term commitment, I'm with Bryan in that I wouldn't be surprised to see them let him go.