The Scores Report - The National Sports Blog » Brian Dawkins

2009 fantasy football is coming aoon—a look back at 2008 defenses

Mike Farley — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:52:18 +0000

Last month we started looking at last season’s statistics for position players in fantasy football land, and today we’ll look at a position many often overlook. That’s fantasy defenses, which can sometimes put up just enough points to earn your team a victory once in a while. It’s always smart to try and grab one of the top units, although as we’ve seen before, things change, sometimes drastically, from year to year with fantasy D’s. Me? I like to grab my defense before my kicker. This list is based on point totals from one of my leagues, so keep in mind that stats vary from year to year.

1. Baltimore Ravens—The Ravens’ defense is perennially awesome, and we’ll find out for sure how much of that was due to former coordinator Rex Ryan, who is now the head honcho for the Jets. Ryan took plenty of players with him too, like LB Bart Scott and S Jim Leonhard, but the Ravens still have Ray Lewis, Ed Reed and Terrell Suggs. Reed just keeps getting better every year, and his sick nose for the ball is one reason the Ravens had a league high 26 picks. They will keep scoring low as always, but their 34 sacks last season isn’t much to get excited about. Bottom line: The Ravens won’t be a number one this year, but are still top 10.

2. Philadelphia Eagles—Sadly, coordinator Jim Johnson passed away this week, though he was on leave from the team anyway. Look for the Eagles to continue Johnson’s schemes however, which means blitz, blitz and more blitz. What that means to you is sack points, and while Brian Dawkins is now in Denver, the secondary is still strong with corners Sheldon Brown and Asante Samuel and safeties Quintin Mikell and Quintin Demps. Bottom line: 48 sacks is a lot, and the Eagles may not match that in ’09, but they aren’t going to suck by any means.

3. Pittsburgh Steelers—You don’t win the Super Bowl without a stout unit, and this won finished second in the league with 51 sacks, led by two awesome linebackers, NFL Defensive Player of the Year James Harrison, and LaMarr Woodley. The Steelers also ranked #1 in points allowed and yard allowed, with 20 picks and three defensive scores. Bottom line: With the front seven intact, this unit may be the top defense taken in many FF drafts.

4. Tennessee Titans—If you live in Nashville like I do, you saw this team play a lot, and let me tell you….their games are pretty boring to watch. Well, unless you like 13-10 scores every week. Punishing DT Albert Haynesworth is now in Washington, but Tony Brown and Kyle Vanden Bosch are no slouches, and CB Cortland Finnegan is a ball hawk like Ed Reed. Bottom line: More boring games for me, more fantasy points for you.

5. Chicago Bears—Their 22 interceptions probably had a lot to do with the Bears finishing as high as they did in 2008, but the Monsters of the Midway with just 28 sacks? To put that in perspective, the Saints also tallied 28 sacks. And besides Brian Urlacher, go ahead try to name five players on this defense. The Bears gave up 350 points in ’08, which is over 100 more than the Titans, Steelers and Ravens. Still, it’s the Bears. Bottom line: You can pick them, but I’m only picking them as a bye week backup.

6. Tampa Bay Bucs—This is not the same unit that ranked in the top 10 in points allowed and yards allowed in 2008, with Jon Gruden gone and Raheem Morris at the helm. Derrick Brooks is gone as are Cato June and Jovan Haye, but the likes of DE Gaines Adams and the ageless CB Ronde Barber remain. How much of Gruden’s mark will be missed? Bottom line: With so much turnover in the front office and on the field, I’m not taking my chances with these guys.

7. Green Bay Packers—Everyone expected big things from the Pack in 2008, but it was their offense, led by QB Aaron Brooks and WR Greg Jennings that were the bright spots on a mediocre team. So now with new D-coordinator Dom Capers and his 3-4 in place, things will look different at Lambeau. Aaron Kampman is now an outside linebacker, and BJ Raji and AJ Hawk are left to clog up the middle. Kampman will likely have more sacks, but how will the 3-4 affect overall fantasy points? Bottom line: I’m going out on a limb—the Pack will be much better defensively, and could be a fantasy sleeper.

8. New York Jets—DT Kris Jenkins is a monster, and Rex Ryan brought along a few toys, like Bart Scott and Jim Leonhard, as we mentioned earlier. Eric Mangini also took some players with him to Cleveland, but the Jets will still keep scores low, rack up sacks, and score on defense (5 defensive TDs in 2008). CB Darrelle Revis had 5 picks and keeps getting better. Bottom line: Proceed with caution, but still a Top 10 D.

9. Indianapolis Colts—Even with Tony Dungy gone and Jim Caldwell running the team, the Colts still give up way too much ground on the ground. Thing is, they are opportunistic, and they have Dwight Freeney attacking the QB and a bunch of under the radar players (like LB Gary Brackett) wreaking havoc (30 forced fumbles and 5 defensive scores in 2008). Bottom line: The Colts’ D will keep them in games, meaning these guys will continue to play hard and put up decent fantasy points.

10. Minnesota Vikings—These guys are damn near as good as the Ravens, led on the line by Jared Allen and DT’s Pat and Kevin Williams (45 team sacks in 2008). 12 picks from this unit is baffling, as is allowing 333 points, but they can be better. Bottom line: The Vikes may not be a true top 10 this season, so I’d take my chances with the revamped Giants or the sack-happy Cowboys before them.

Teams that aren’t on this list you’ll want to draft: New York Giants, San Diego Chargers, Dallas Cowboys, Washington Redskins.

Which position is the safest bet in the first round?

John Paulsen — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:47:52 +0000

I was watching one of the many Mel Kiper and Todd McShay arguments on ESPN the other day [video], and Kiper was arguing that if McShay has Matthew Stafford ranked so high (McShay currently has Stafford ranked #8), then he should almost be a no-brainer for the Detroit Lions, who have the #1 overall pick and need a quarterback. McShay isn’t convinced that he’s a so-called “franchise” quarterback, so he says he would go another direction. (For the record, at the time Kiper called McShay “crazy” for having Stafford that high, but now he has the QB ranked #3 on his big board. It’s clear that Kiper’s pure hatred for McShay is causing him to slowly lose his mind.)

Anyway, the debate piqued my interest and got me wondering – when it comes to the first round of the NFL Draft, is one position safer than another? For example, if the Lions have three holes to fill (they have more, but bear with me) – quarterback, linebacker and tackle – and they can’t decide amongst the three players, is one position a safer pick than the other two?

So I compiled a list of the 313 players that were picked from 1997-2006 (assuming that it takes three seasons to get a decent idea of what kind of player a draft pick is going to turn out to be) and asked our NFL guru, Anthony Stalter, to rate each player on a scale of 1 to 5…

(1) Out of League
(2) Reserve
(3) Starter
(4) Star
(5) Superstar

The Out of League, Star and Superstar categories are pretty self-explanatory. To qualify as a Starter, the player must be starter-caliber for the majority of his NFL career. A Reserve is a player that is a backup for the majority of his career, so he may have started at one point, but on the whole he’s a backup. For the younger players, Anthony had to project a little bit. For example, a player is a starter in his third year – does he project to be star or superstar, or will he simply be a starter for the majority of his career?

Anthony rated each player (and after some spirited debate about a few of his ratings), I compiled all the data into Table 1 below. It shows each position, the percentage of first round picks that position was taken, and the number (and percentage) of times those picks turned out to be superstars, stars, starters, reserves and out of league players.

In Table 2, I summed the Star and Superstar categories (naming it “Star+”) to find out which position provided the most. If the goal of a first round pick is to “not mess it up,” and at least get a solid starter out of the pick, then teams would be interested in the sum of the Starter, Star and Superstar categories (a.k.a. “Starter+”).

The results are interesting. There are a number of positions that hit Stars or Superstars at a 25-30% rate – QB, RB, WR, G, LB and S – but quarterback, running back and wide receiver only hit Starter+ at a 44-57% rate whereas the other three positions are all at 83% or more. The lesson? Guard, linebacker and safety are much safer picks.

But back to the Detroit Lions. They have holes at QB, T and LB and the top player in each category – quarterback Matthew Stafford, tackle Jason Smith and linebacker Aaron Curry – are all reasonable #1 overall picks.

So who should the Lions take?

Assuming Detroit has done its due diligence and the three players grade out about the same (i.e. the Lions’ scouting hasn’t revealed a clear choice), the safest pick appears to be Curry. According to the numbers, he has an 83% chance of developing into at least a starter and a 27% chance of turning into a star or a superstar. Compare that to the numbers for QB (44% Starter+, 26% Star+) and T (73% Starter+, 13% Star+) and it’s clear why Curry is the “safe” way to go here. As the #1 overall pick, the Lions are going to have to invest a ton of money in the player, so it’s better to go with a position that they’re pretty sure will turn into at least a starter (and has just as good of a chance of turning into a star or superstar). In short, tackle has less upside and quarterback has more downside – linebacker is juuuuuust right.

Aaron Curry: The Lions’ best bet.

Let’s bring in Anthony Stalter for some back-and-forth about the numbers and what they say about how NFL teams should approach their first round picks.

Anthony: For those who have followed the NFL over the years and more specifically, paid attention as prospects made the jump from college to the pros, it’s easy to understand why quarterbacks, wideouts and cornerbacks are considered risky picks in the first round.

It’s the age of free agency in the NFL and with that, teams need rookies to play right away even though quarterbacks, wideouts and cornerbacks would benefit from learning on the sidelines for a year or two before they saw extensive game action. Granted, wideouts don’t have to download as much as quarterbacks in terms of recognizing defenses and learning the playbook, but most colleges don’t run pro style offenses and therefore it takes longer for them to learn how to run routes and understand the nuances of trying to get open.

When you factor in how big the expectations are because these prospects are first rounders, it’s easy to understand why the failure rate is so high. If these players aren’t struggling to learn the game, they’re surely crumbling under the lofty expectations bestowed upon them for being high draft picks.

What’s interesting about this particular debate as it relates to the Lions is that word is they’re trying to trade out of the No. 1 slot so they don’t have to carry the financial burden that comes along with having the top overall pick. But if Detroit is so concerned with the amount of money they’ll have to pay the No. 1 pick, then taking a quarterback or an offensive tackle is unwise.

The top quarterback in last year’s draft was Matt Ryan, who went No. 3 overall to the Falcons. Ryan signed a six-year, $72 million contract that included $34.75 million in guarantees. Jake Long, who was selected No. 1 overall by the Dolphins and who was also the top offensive tackle in last year’s draft, signed a five-year, $57.75 million deal that included $30 million in guarantees. So, whether the Lions drafted Smith or Stafford, they’d still have to commit roughly $12 to $15 million a year towards one of those players.

Some analysts (including me) consider Curry as the best player in the draft and he fits a major need for the Lions. When you factor in that the Lions are worried about the potential cap hit that they would endure in going with either Stafford or Smith, as well as the fact that linebackers have generally been one of the safest positions to draft in the first round, Curry would appear to be a slam dunk for Detroit at No. 1.

By the way, the Jets made Vernon Gholston the top linebacker in the 2008 NFL Draft when they selected him with the No. 6 overall pick. They signed Gholston to a five-year, $32.5 million contract that included $21 million in guarantees. Even though Curry would make more as the No. 1 overall pick, if the Lions selected him they would be looking at a yearly cap hit of roughly $5 to $8 mil less than if they chose Stafford or Smith.

Gholston’s salary means the Lions can sign LB Curry for less than QB Stafford or T Smith.

JP: The fact that the Lions would want to trade out of the #1 pick for financial reasons (not necessarily to load up on picks in order to fill more holes) just goes to show how out of whack the rookie salary structure is in the NFL. These guys are paid like they’re stars no matter what, even when the numbers show that less than one in five first round picks actually turns out to be a star or superstar. It seems like, all things being equal, Curry should be the pick because not only is linebacker a “safer” position than quarterback or tackle, Detroit won’t have to pay him nearly as much on a per season basis. Is there a pro-QB or pro-tackle argument to be made based on overall league depth at the position? Is a great tackle or QB harder to come by than a great linebacker?

Anthony: I would say so. Star QBs are few and far between, but there’s no guarantee that you’ll find one in the first round. Tom Brady was a seventh round pick, Drew Brees and Brett Favre were second rounders, and Tony Romo and Kurt Warner were undrafted. Obviously Peyton Manning, Donovan McNabb and Eli Manning were all first rounders, but there are a ton of first round busts too.

I think star offensive tackles are hard to come by as well because it’s hard to scout them. You can’t just look at their size and say, “Yep – he’s going to be great.” Scouts have to take into account their size, strength, footwork and even their arm reach.

Linebackers, on the other hand, are usually easier to spot. Did they show the ability to shed blocks in college? Are they fast enough to play sideline to sideline? Are they athletic enough to play on third downs and in obvious passing situations? And don’t forget that there are more linebackers to choose from in college, too. Four USC linebackers will be drafted this year and all of them will most likely go in the first three rounds. There’s only one USC quarterback that will be selected.

It’s also easier for teams to recognize what kind of linebacker fits their scheme. USC’s Rey Maualuga can’t play outside linebacker in a 4-3, but he definitely fits as a middle linebacker in that scheme or an inside linebacker in a 3-4. Virginia’s Clint Sintim isn’t a great fit at middle linebacker in a 4-3, but he would make a great strongside ‘backer in that scheme.

So to answer your question – yes, in my opinion, a great tackle and/or quarterback is harder to come by than a great linebacker.

JP: Maybe it’s the overall impact on the game by each position. Is it true to say that a star QB will have more of an impact than a star linebacker? It would seem so. A good QB will throw 20-30 passes every game and maybe run the ball a few times as well. How many impact plays will a great LB make? Conversely, it wouldn’t seem like a star tackle would have a bigger impact than a star LB, would it?

Anthony: It’s all relative. That star tackle has to keep defenders off that good quarterback in order for him to throw 20-30 passes a game. And that great linebacker can turn a game on its head by forcing a turnover, stopping a run in the backfield or making a game-saving tackle.

It’s hard to grade impact on a football field. Every position holds its own value and that’s why football is the ultimate team game. But at the risk of contradicting myself, I guess one could say that a quarterback has the ability to make the biggest impact. After all, the ball is in his hands every play and we’ve all seen what guys like Manning, Brady and Favre can do when they take over a game seemingly on their own. But again, they’re just one cog in the machine.

What everyone hopes to get with a first round QB.

JP: Maybe that’s the risk/reward of drafting a QB in the first round. The upside is you get a great player (i.e. Peyton Manning) who can help you win for years to come. The downside is your pick is a bust (i.e. Ryan Leaf). Manning could turn the Lions around but Leaf would be some of the same ol’ same ol’.

You mentioned how rookie QBs, WRs and CBs need time to learn the position – is that why those positions have such a high bust rate? I’d probably throw tight ends into that category as well. I keep hearing over and over how difficult of a position it is to learn. The chances of getting a starter at those four positions are all in the 45-55% range. But running back is a position that has a reputation for being fairly easy to pick up, yet its Starter+ rate is only 57%. What is it about running back that depresses this success rate as it relates to the offensive line, defensive line, linebacker and safety? My theory is since RB is one of the so-called “skill positions” and the best college players at these positions generally get a lot of attention while in school, that the NFL general managers end up pulling the trigger on these players too early on draft day.

Anthony: The running back position perplexes me when I look at the numbers you mentioned because, generally speaking, that is one of the easiest positions to learn coming out of college. So why haven’t running backs taken in the first round found much success?

One notion I have revolves around teams focusing too much on the size and speed of a running back prospect and not taking into account how good his vision is. (I’m obviously not talking about his actual vision in terms of being 20/20 or what have you, but him being able to read holes and get up the field.)

Players like T.J. Duckett, Curtis Enis, William Green and Ron Dayne all had the size teams looked for, but clearly lacked the ability to recognize where the holes were so that they could make their cuts and get up field. Teams fell in love with Trung Canidate, John Avery and Michael Bennett’s speed, but all that speed will be neutralized if a back doesn’t have the awareness to get through that initial hole as quickly as he can and get to the next level.

Now look at guys like Warrick Dunn, Shaun Alexander and LaDainian Tomlinson. Do those players have the best combination of size and speed? Nope. Dunn has always been too small, Alexander has never had enough top end speed and LT isn’t the biggest back in the league at 5’10”, 221-pounds. But they all have tremendous vision and that’s what separates them from other backs taken in the first round.

You asked if quarterbacks, wideouts and cornerbacks have higher bust rates than other positions because of the learning curve and I would have to say yes, that’s a huge part of it. Skill position players coming out of college have a hard time adjusting to the speed of the game. Throw in the amount of knowledge they must attain from playbooks and game film – as well as the lofty expectations for being a first round pick – and you create a tough environment for these players to succeed in.

The game of football has always been the same, but the amount of preparation that goes into just one NFL game is unrivaled by any other sport. It’s why fewer than 1,700 players make it on NFL rosters every year.

Dunn is proof that good vision is more important than size or speed.

JP: So when scouting a running back, people should be looking at the percentage of times the player made the correct cut more than they should be looking at his 40 time or overall size? That makes sense.

One last question – given these numbers, if you were running a draft room, would they impact how you proceeded in the first round? We both agree that Curry is the safest (and therefore probably the best) pick for the Lions, but what if you were faced with a different decision.

Let’s say that you are the owner of the #10 pick in the draft and you have holes at DE, WR and FS. Picking 10th, your team is mediocre and is probably at least two years away from seriously contending. You’ve done a crapload of scouting, and the next three players on your draft board are a WR (#10), a DE (#11) and a FS (#12). You have the WR ranked slightly ahead of the other two players, but all three are in the same tier (i.e. there isn’t a big drop off between any of them). Knowing that the WR has a Star+ of 24% and a Starter+ of 49%, the DE has a Star+ of 17% and a Starter+ of 79% and the safety has a Star+ of 27% and a Starter+ of 91%, who do you draft? Are these numbers strong enough to draft the safety over the other two positions, or do you go with your scouting grades and take the slight favorite (the WR)? Or do these numbers justify taking the DE?

Anthony: I think these ratings would be very beneficial to a team, assuming of course that they agree with my player rankings. But the thing to keep in mind is that not all of the 32 teams run the same offensive and defensive schemes. So certain prospects don’t appeal to some teams like they do others. That might be an obvious statement, but I don’t want any reader to interpret our discussion and findings as the end all/be all for how to draft a player.

But your mock scenario is a good one, so I’ll play along. If I have the #10 pick in the draft and I have needs at WR, DE and FS, and there are WR, DE and FS prospects that are available and I have them similarly rated, then I’m going with the FS. If I know there’s a 91% chance that I’m going to get a starter at the No. 10 pick and that he filled a need and was high on my board, I would jump at the opportunity. I’ll also throw in the fact that having an impact safety in the NFL is almost becoming a necessity. Look at the safeties in the final four playoff teams last year: Adrian Wilson (Cardinals), Ed Reed (Ravens), Troy Polomalu (Steelers) and Brian Dawkins (Eagles).

Another interesting point of view is the one of a fan. As a fan, I look at these rankings and I hope that my favorite team takes a player in the first round that plays a position that has a high success rate of turning into a starter (i.e. LB, S, G). Granted, most guards aren’t selected in the top 20 and this year’s safety class is weak, but in general, I would want my team to stay away from positions that have a lower success rate.

JP: If I were running a draft room, I’d definitely use these numbers to guide my picks. I’d have to be really sure about a skill position player before burning a first round pick and I’d only go that route if I didn’t have any other holes to fill. Thanks for your time, Anthony, and once the draft is done, we’ll definitely look back at the first round to see what kind of decision process each team used.

Anthony: Thanks, this was fun.

Broncos sign Brian Dawkins to five-year deal

Anthony Stalter — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 00:00:43 +0000

NFL.com’s Adam Schefter is reporting that the Broncos have reached a deal with free agent safety Brian Dawkins (Eagles) on a five-year, $17 million contract with $7.2 million guaranteed.

Denver signs free agent safety Brian Dawkins to a five-year, $17 million deal that includes $7.2 million guaranteed. The contract also has escalators that could boost the value of the deal to $27 million over five years, but the deal also could be voided to two years, $9 million.

Considering Dawkins is already 35 years old, chances are the two-year deal will be the one that comes into play. But even at 35, Dawkins has always remained in fantastic shape and the Broncos landed a true veteran leader. He’s always been one of the classier players in the league and here’s hoping he has a few more productive years left in him.

It’s going to be weird not seeing Dawkins in a Philadelphia uniform next season.

Five ’08 NFL playoff teams with issues heading into ’09

Anthony Stalter — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:29:20 +0000

Vinnie Iyer of SportingNews.com did an interesting piece on five NFL playoff teams who have big issues heading into the 2009 season.

1) Baltimore Ravens. Joe Flacco has had a great start to his career, but to take the next step as a quarterback, he probably could use a young receiver with No. 1 potential. The more pressing issues, however, are with Baltimore’s backbone, its defense. First, it’ll be a challenge to find a coordinator and play-caller to match Rex Ryan, who left to become head coach of the New York Jets…

2) Philadelphia Eagles. To some extent, the Donovan McNabb question was answered, at least for the ’09 season. His support system may be different, however. Aging offensive tackles Tra Thomas and Jon Runyan will be free agents. Top guard Shawn Andrews will need to come back from back surgery, and also may need to move outside. Backup running back Correll Buckhalter also wants to explore options out of Philadelphia. Defensively, stalwart safety Brian Dawkins could also walk…

3) Carolina Panthers. Will Carolina need to address the quarterback position after Jake Delhomme’s six-turnover fiasco against Arizona in the divisional playoffs? It seems unfair to judge Delhomme on his first truly bad playoff game, when his play and leadership has been huge for the Panthers in the big picture. But still, with his age (34) and the fact he’s just one year removed from major elbow surgery, it might be time to draft a project passer to groom. In addition, Delhomme’s Pro Bowl left tackle, Jordan Gross, can become an unrestricted free agent….

4) Indianapolis Colts. Tony Dungy and general manager Bill Polian were hoping for a smooth coaching transition with Jim Caldwell taking over, but it hasn’t been necessarily easy in the early going. Offensive coordinator Tom Moore, 70, and offensive line coach Howard Mudd, 66, nearly opted to follow Dungy into retirement. Defensive coordinator Ron Meeks flat-out resigned on Tuesday, and Caldwell fired special teams coach Russ Pernell. Caldwell isn’t a Dungy clone — there will be a different feel around the team….

5) New York Giants. Defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo left to be head coach of the Rams, and there’s a chance offensive coordinator Kevin Gilbride gets the same gig with the Raiders. The unit that Gilbride may leave behind has plenty of issues…

Iyer goes into more detail on every team, so check out the entire piece.

I agree on all of Iyer’s takes, although these problems are nothing new for any playoff team. Good teams have their coordinators stripped from them to become head coaches in other cities. Star players in contract years bolt for bigger paydays elsewhere, while other standouts get another year older or slower.

All five of the above teams have the potential to face major change and that’s what makes them a risk not to make a repeat playoff appearance next year. The most interesting team is the Ravens because they have so many questions to answer about their defense, which has been their identity the past eight or nine years.

Six Pack of Observations: Eagles at Giants

Anthony Stalter — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:38:17 +0000

Here are six quick-hit thoughts on the Eagles’ 23-11 divisional round playoff victory over the Giants.

1. Don’t be shocked – the writing was on the wall for the Giants.
There’s no question that this was an upset; No. 1 seeds rarely fall in the divisional round, although ironically both the Giants and Titans did just that this weekend. But while this was considered an upset, an Eagle victory was hardly shocking. The Giants haven’t played a complete game since beating the Redskins in Week 13, the absence of Plaxico Burress severely hurt Eli Manning and the passing game over the past month, and the Eagles were just flat out a bad matchup for Big Blue. Throw in the fact that Philly beat the Giants in East Rutherford in Week 14 and this upset was in the making as soon as the Eagles knocked off the Vikings last Sunday.

2. Plaxico Burress’s selfishness cost his team in the end.
I don’t care what the players or coaches say – not having Burress killed the Giants’ passing game and destroyed their overall offensive balance. New York was able to move the ball effectively on the ground against the Eagles but when it came down to the Giants making a play in the passing game, they couldn’t. Obviously a lot of that falls on Eli Manning’s shoulders, but it’s hard to make plays when your receivers can’t get create separation with the defenders. Burress cost his team dearly because he didn’t care enough about his teammates or his profession to not carry a loaded weapon into a club. The Giants should part ways with this selfish idiot in the offseason and rid themselves of this massive distraction.

3. Confidence is a scary thing.
The Eagles have been one of the most inconsistent teams in the NFL this season but when they play with confidence and momentum, they’re hard to beat. They’ve always been one of those teams (like the Ravens and Steelers) that have played with swagger. And when their opponents can’t mount up and punch them in the mouth right out of the gates, the Eagles gain confidence throughout the course of the game. That’s what happened today. The Giants held the ball longer, gained more total yards and had fewer penalties than the Eagles. But they never took control of the game and you just had the feeling that once the Eagles built a two-possession lead, the Giants wouldn’t recover. And they didn’t.

4. Donovan McNabb finally has another playmaker.
In both of their playoff wins, rookie DeSean Jackson has made big plays. Last week he had a huge punt return to set the Eagles up with great field position against the Vikings and today, his 48-yard reception essentially put the final dagger in the backs of the Giants. With a little more maturity, Jackson could develop into one of the best playmakers in the NFL. For now, he’s been an outstanding addition to the Eagles’ offense and he’s making up for the lack of postseason production by Brian Westbrook. There’s no doubt McNabb loves what Jackson has brought to the table and the veteran QB finally has weapon in the passing game again.

5. Stop it with the respect card.
I love Brian Dawkins. Love him. I think he has easily been one of the best safeties over the past decade and his leadership is unrivaled. But his on-field interview at the end of the game where he cried (literally) about the Eagles not getting any respect was ridiculous. The “respect card” is a tired act in sports and players need to stop using that as their go-to after games. No Brian, not everyone in the free world thought the Eagles could beat the defending Super Bowl champs on their home field. (Although for the record, I did.) Get over it.

6. Gary Myers screwed the Giants.
Local columnists should learn to play things a little more conservatively after Mark Bradley of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Gary Myers of the New York Daily News jinxed their teams this postseason. Bradley predicted a Falcon win before their Wild Card game last Saturday in Arizona and earlier this week, Myers so boastfully claimed that there was no way the Eagles would beat the Giants on Sunday. Word to the wise for Philly and Arizona newspaper columnists – stay away from predictions next week.

Do the Giants miss Plaxico Burress now?

Anthony Stalter — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:47:27 +0000

When the New York Giants placed wide receiver Plaxico Burress on the non-injury football list earlier this week and effectively ended his season, everyone said all the right things. The players said they could win with or without him and the media said the Giants were all about the team – both true.

But nobody could say following their 20-14 loss to the Philadelphia Eagles on Sunday that the Giants couldn’t have used Burress. Eli Manning was just 13 of 27 for 123 yards and a touchdown, while no Giant receiver had more than four catches or 40 yards.

I don’t want to take anything away from the Eagles’ defense, because they blitzed and swarmed Manning the entire game. They also should have had at least one interception, but Asante Samuel and Brian Dawkins collided with each other and the pass fell to the ground.

That said, Manning looked completely out of sync with his receivers and Domenik Hixon dropped a perfect pass that could have been a touchdown. And once Brandon Jacobs left the game with a knee injury in the third quarter, the Giants could have really used a playmaker like Burress to breathe life into their offense.

Burress doesn’t deserve to be playing right now and it’s only fair he’s being punished for his selfish actions. But the idea that the Giants are a better team without him still remains to be seen and their loss Sunday proves that. They’re still the best team in the league and they will bounce back from their defeat. But it’ll be interesting to see whether or not the offensive woes that were on display on Sunday will reappear in the postseason without Burress in the lineup.

As for the Eagles, this was a massive win and it keeps their slim playoff hopes alive. With the Saints’ win over the Falcons, the final NFC Wild Card spot is up for grabs and if Brian Westbrook (203 total yards, 2 total touchdowns) and the Eagles’ defense plays as well as they did against the Giants, than Philly’s playoff hopes are far from dead.