It’s been quite a week for birds, huh? There was that flock that took down a plane on Thursday, and we will have Ravens, Cardinals and Eagles in the NFL’s conference championships this weekend.

The thing on my mind lately is that late in the season, after Donovan McNabb was benched by Andy Reid, the immediate knee-jerk was that he’d be available in the off-season. And that so many Jets fans said they had no interest in McNabb replacing Brett Favre. Imagine. Would you take that trade right now?

McNabb, who had the second-best winning percentage in his first 75 NFL starts (.707, second only to Tom Brady) will play in his fifth NFC championship, looking to get to his second Super Bowl. All he does is win. But, nah, you wouldn’t want him in a Jets uniform.

Meanwhile, the Jets still haven’t named a coach and still don’t know if Favre is coming back, and I have this question for Mike Tannenbaum:

What was your plan for a quarterback before you got Favre during the preseason? And what is your play for a quarterback after Favre is gone? I mean, were the Jets really going to spend all that money on offensive linemen last year and then hand the job to Kellen Clemens? And can Clemens possibly be expected to be the next one?

Anyway, back to the birds. Time for NFC and AFC championship picks, Sam, and any readers who want to join us. Scores please.

I was 1-3 last week, just stellar picking (granted, NOBODY picked the Cards). Sam was 2-2. That leaves me 3-5 for the playoffs, and Sam 5-3. And that means he only has to call one game correctly the rest of the way, or even pick one game the same way I pick it, and he wins the postseason title to go with his regular-season nail-biting win. So, in advance, I congratulate you, Sam.

NFC CHAMPIONSHIP
Eagles 23, Cardinals 20.

AFC CHAMPIONSHIP
Steelers 28, Ravens 24.

12:37 p.m., Sam says:

I’ve always been intrigued by McNabb, if only because he seems to be so many things all in one: Talented, athletic, outspoken, humorous and, at times, controversial. He’s also, as you said Carp, a winner. Which makes it interesting that he’s such a contentious figure in Philly.

I said on the live chat I did with Mike Dougherty a few weeks back that I thought McNabb was playing with legitimate purpose this winter. And that purpose is his legacy. His numbers are excellent, and put him among some of the best quarterbacks to play. Certainly he helped re-define the notion of the mobile quarterback, which is was an important innovation, too.

But he hasn’t won. And I think that McNabb knows this is as good an opportunity as he’ll have to finally get there. He got benched, shown up, embarrassed. Then he got over it and now he’s two wins from cementing his standing.

Is he the right fit for the Jets? I’m not so sure another aging QB is the way they should go anyway. But obviously McNabb isn’t going anywhere anymore. Not after what’s he done and still might do.

I don’t know if he’ll win it. But I’ll certainly be rooting that he does.

NFC Championship:
Eagles 24, Cardinals 17

AFC Championship:
Ravens 23, Steelers 20

Whether or not you want to give Plaxico Burress any share of the blame for the Giants’ finish to the season, there’s no debating that his status with the team is an issue the Giants must deal with as they head towards spring and summer. Obviously Burress has legal concerns that could make any discussion of his NFL future moot, but assuming he does avoid jail time for shooting himself in the leg with an allegedly illegal gun, what do you want the Giants to do?

Does Plaxico stay or does he go?

I wrote a column in this morning’s paper and on LoHud.com saying that he needs to go. I think this is an easy call for a number of reasons, most importantly that a) the Giants just can’t trust that Burress won’t do something else that would leave the team without its best receiver in the middle of a season again; and b) that this isn’t Burress’ first-offense so we’re not talking about “second chances” here. Burress has had more than a couple of issues with discipline, and I’m just not sure Tom Coughlin is ready to handle it anymore.

What’s your take? How badly do you want to see Burress back with the Giants and would you be disappointed if they let him go?

CARP SAYS:

If I were running the Giants, I would have been thinking about booting Plax off the team before he shot himself in the leg—if that’s what really happened. I wouldn’t want this guy who misses meetings, skips practices without calling, is always late, rarely practices … and who, we now hear, has all sorts of priors.

I just wouldn’t want that on a team that otherwise is so focused and single-minded.

I’ve said this before, early in the year, when Plax was being Plax, his teammates love him. Well, it turns out that some don’t. But a lot still do, and that includes Eli Manning and Antonio (Getaway Car) Pierce. I think they would welcome him back if he promised change.

On the other hand, there surely are a number of Giants who think that the Glockman cost them a chance of a Super Bowl repeat, that he sabotaged what was about to be a very special year.

But if I’m Jerry Reese, I’m looking at what I can do to replace him. I know that Reese was vague and non-committal on Burress when the season ended and again a day later. He said some things like, if Burress cleans up his life away from football, “You never say never.”

But I think that Reese has to say things like that because not only is Burress tied up in all sorts of legal woes, but because the Players Association has filed a grievance against the Giants for suspending him (and to try and prevent the G-men from saving the $27 million, or whatever the amount is, they would still owe Burress on his new contract). He has to say the right thing so it doesn’t appear the Giants have already closed the book on him, at least until the gun charges and the grievance are played out.

Let’s remember that Reese also said this week that there are teams without a weapon like Burress “still playing.” In other words, a weapon (poor choice of words?) like Plaxico is a luxury, not a necessity.

11:57 a.m., Sam says:

Since Carp and I agree on getting rid of Plax, let’s see where we fall on who they should get to replace him. I like Anquin Boldin out of Arizona, who’s a big-play type guy that could be available since he’s said he’s not so happy there. Another name you hear a lot is T.J. Houshmandzadeh, who’s definitely an undeniable talent as well.

What do you think Carp? Go after someone in the draft? Or go for a pro? Who’s the next big receiver the Giants get?

 CARP SAYS:

 Go the proven route. It’s nice to draft a kid right out of college, but usually they take time, and   the Giants ought to be thinking now, while they have the rest of this collection together

Maybe Jerry Reese has to use some imagination and find a trade. Those big-play guys are hard to get in trades, though, like pitchers in baseball. And you have to be careful, because if somebody is willing to trade you a big playmaker, he’s probably got some baggage, too. We already know that WRs are generally the bad guys, or the selfish guys, or the divas, of the NFL.

The Giants believed that Mario Manningham could be a big-play guy when they got him in the draft last year, but Manningham had plenty of stuff in his past (that’s why he was available later), and he spent this year learning and watching. So he’s still very much an unknown.

It won’t be easy replacing Burress without getting another problem.

UPDATE:

You can read the full transcript of Jerry Reese’s press conference here.

Omar Minaya fixed Problem No. 1 at the Winter Meetings in Vegas.

But … other than a vastly improved bullpen, how much different are these Mets, especially now that Derek Lowe has landed in Atlanta? Before we go any further, may I say that four years and $60 million is way, way too much for a 14-11 pitcher. I know, he’s durable and he gives you lots of innings and he keeps the ball on the ground, but geez. Four years for an old guy? I think that contract will turn out to be a disaster on the back end for the Braves.

Anyway, it leaves the Mets with not many options, especially now that Oliver Perez is in position to be pursued by several teams. Any team that had eyes for the top pitchers in the market will now focus on Perez, who still has loads of upside, and is still in his 20s, and is left-handed. That’s three great checkmarks on his side. Of course, the one negative is that he drives you nuts with his inconsistency.

Other than the ‘pen, the Mets, as they stand right now, go into Bailout Ballpark with pretty much the same lineup.

So, once again, we bring up the name of the man pictured above, Mr. Manny. Do they dare? Do you want him?

What say you?

8 a.m., Sam says:

No, no, no. A thousand times, no. Not for Manny. Unless …

Two years. That’s it. That’s the max I’d go for Manny. But that’s not happening. Even though this has supposedly been the winter of cheapness in baseball, it seems like some guys are still getting their money (CC, Burnett and Lowe, just to name a few) so I’ll wait to see that “watered-down” contract for Manny before I believe it. I still think he’s getting big bucks somewhere.

As for the Mets, I think they’re in trouble. Did they help their bullpen? Yup. But show me the good hitter in the lineup you can count on that will bat below the No. 5 hole. And show me the starter, other than Johan Santana, that you know is a sure thing for 10-plus wins. John Maine off surgery? Not so much. That’s why I think they miscalculated with Lowe – if nothing else, you look at his numbers and you know he’s always been consistent.

Perez hasn’t. And now they’re going to have to pay for him or, alternatively, go for cheaper and also less-reliable options. Jon Garland. Randy Wolf. These are the guys still looking for jobs, and maybe the Mets end up with one. They already got Tim Redding on a one-year deal.

I’m not sure there’s a free agent signing out there that the Mets can make right now that would make me feel like they significantly upgraded their rotation. It may have to be via a trade. And without that, I see the Mets right now as a giant question mark.

What about you, Carp? You want Manny?

CARP SAYS:

No, I wouldn’t want him. But I don’t think that means the Mets won’t get him.

I believe it’s possible that the Mets get into a position where they can’t get one of these pitchers—and now it’s down to Perez, who’s not an upgrade because he was here last year—and if Perez goes elsewhere, then they have some spending coin left.

And you know Omar Minaya likes Manny, and you know he feels the need to make a splash—wrong-headed as that may be—because of what the Yankees have done and because of the opening of Bailout Ballpark.

Let’s face it, baggage be damned, Manny makes their lineup look awfully legit.

I agree with you, he won’t come cheaply, because if the dollars or years aren’t right, then I don’t see him leaving L.A.

CARP SAYS:

Just came across something Mets fans might want to see, but to those loyal Shea lifers this might be a bit too graphic, so be prepared.

It’s a site called Stadiumpage.com and it has photos of Shea being destroyed. Actually it’s kind of surprising we haven’t seen more photos of the old blue dump being torn down in the newspapers and elsewhere. Be warned.

1: 26 p.m., Sam says:

Great photos—nice find, Carp.

Truthfully, I’m not sure how much of an “upgrade” Manny is for the Mets. With all the distractions in NY, I have trouble imagining him staying focused for very long, plus you know that even Zen guru Jerry Manuel would get fed up with his antics pretty quick. With young guys like Jose Reyes still impressionable, is that the kind of veteran you want around?

If I were the Mets, I’d go for Garland. He’s like a mini-Lowe, a sinkerballer who is probably good for 10 wins minimum but – given the right circumstances and luck – could get up near 15-18. For reasonable money, he’s a decent value.

So Jim Rice finally got a call to the Hall, well deserved in my opinion. And we all knew that Rickey Henderson was going in on the first ballot—the greatest leadoff hitter I’ve ever seen, and perhaps to ever play the game.

I do have some questions for those 28 members of the Baseball Writers Association of America who didn’t vote for him, and even more questions for the two people who voted for Jay Bell.

See, this is what scares me about the voting process.

The other thing that scares me is what happens now that pure numbers don’t mean what they used to mean.

Because next year’s ballot is going to include Fred McGriff, who I’m not sure was ever one of the best players in the game, but who compiled big numbers (493 homers to go with 1,550 RBI and a .284 average in 19 years). He never hit more than 37 homers, but he drove in 100 or more eight times.

It also includes Roberto Alomar, who was probably on a sure-fire Hall path until his dreadful Mets days; yet he was one of the best offensive second basemen ever (.300, 210 homers, 1,140 RBI). It includes Barry Larkin, who was a great, great player at his position, shortstop, and hit .295 with some pop (198 homers, 960 RBI in 19 years).

And it includes Edgar Martinez, a great bat (.312, 309 HR, 1,261 RBI) who might be the best DH since Ron Blomberg first grabbed a bat and put away his glove for the Yankees.

So let’s start things off with this question: Do you think any or all of these guys are legit Hall of Famers? Are any of them good enough to go in on their first ballot? Will next year be a year in which nobody goes into the Hall (except perhaps somebody from the Veterans Committee)?

8:45 a.m., Sam says:

I have a few more seasons until I can vote for the HOF, but my first reaction is that if I were voting next year, I wouldn’t vote for any of those guys. Maybe – maybe – Alomar, because for a middle-infielder he was one fo the best during his generation. I’d have to look closer, but I think he’d be the only one. The numbers are one thing, but I am also a big proponent of the gut-test and, sorry, when I hear “Barry Larkin,” I don’t think “Hall of Famer” right off the bat. Of course, that also means I probably wouldn’t have voted for a number of guys that have already made it.

Who’s next? If not Alomar, the 2011 class isn’t all that impressive either. Jeff Bagwell? Maybe. Though I doubt it.

Thing is, if I were the only voter, the HOF would be a LOT smaller than it is. I hold it to a high standard, probably because it’s such a wonderful and hallowed place. To me, you need to be an all-time great – truly, all-time – and I’m not so sure there is an all-time great each year. In fact, there probably isn’t. So, by definition, that means there are going to be some years where the speeches are from writers or broadcasters or old-timers from the veterans’ committee. And that’s OK, too.

(FYI, I would have voted for Rickey, too. Rice is a tough one – it sort of comes down to how you feel about 11 seasons being enough of a career to put a guy in the HOF. Rice played 16 seasons, but only 11 of them were truly excellent. If 11 seasons is enough, then he probably deserves to go in. I’m not so sure that, when it came time to mark the ballot, I’d be OK with 11 seasons as a decider for an outfielder; longevity, to me, is important. But it’s a close call. I certainly can’t go crazy about people voting for him.)

CARP SAYS:

I was watching MLB Network—which so far I really like most of the time—last night. One of the panelists on its round-table talk show is Barry Larkin. Another is Harold Reynolds. Last night Reynolds was touting Larkin as a slam-dunk HOF.

Worse, two of the guests were voters Tom Verducci and Jon Heyman, two of the most respected baseball writers in the country. I know both of these guys and they are solid citizens and guardians of the game, not to mention A-plus reporters. Yet after they revealed which players were on their ballots, Larkin went into his thing about how players have a problem with writers voting because players compete against each other and know what it’s like “to be in the fox hole together” and when it comes to the Hall, it’s in the hands of people who “never played the game.”

Are you kidding me? The writers’ ballot is taken dead-seriously, and it has kept the Hall (mostly) free of borderline Famers. If it ever went to the players, the number of inductees would triple or quadruple, because players like Reynolds and Larkin think than every good player should go in. And because most ballplayers, as they have shown with their portion of the all-star voting process, don’t have a clue of which players are good, which are great, and what anybody else has really done over his career.

Then Reynolds complained that neither Verducci or Heyman voted for 10 players. The ballot has 10 spaces. You can vote for 10 or you can vote for nobody, but you’re only supposed to vote for those you think belong in the Hall of Fame (not Jay Bell). So Verducci’s ballot had only three names on it, Heyman went for seven, which is a lot. I voted for four—Henderson, Rice (the most feared hitter of his era, more so than Eddie Murray, for example), Don Mattingly (ditto), and Bert Blyleven. I might have been convinced to add three more—Tim Raines, Andre Dawson and Jack Morris—but wasn’t. There was no way I was going to come up with 10.

Next year, I guarantee I won’t have 10 on my ballot. But that’s because the writers take this voting privelege seriously, because we take the Hall seriously. It’s not a place for crony-ism, where good players are rewarded for having a lot of friends in the game. And if the Hall of Fame ever gets too crowded, as Yogi would say, nobody would go there anymore.

11:22 a.m., Sam says:

This is one of those debates that I go back and forth on – in a lot of ways, I think it’s the height of stupidity that writers vote for any awards that don’t involve writing. Why should writers vote? Why not GM’s? Front-office types? Scouts? People who, you know, are actually involved with the game as opposed to people whose job it is to report on/comment on it? Making the news isn’t what journalists are supposed to do, so why should we be involved in bestowing the greatest honor in the game?

Cronyism exists everywhere, including among writers. Put it this way: If Jason Giambi, who is universally hailed as a great guy for writers, had Barry Bonds’ numbers, I think there’s a much greater chance he’d go into the HOF quickly, whereas I think Bonds will end up being “penalized” a few ballots (which, on another tangent, is the dumbest thing voters do – either a guy gets in or doesn’t; waiting a few years is just being spiteful).

You said the writers ballot is taken “dead seriously” but is it? Last I checked, Jay Bell was on a few ballots. How serious is that? Same with Jesse Orosco? And Mo Vaughn????

CARP SAYS:

So will you refuse your ballot when you become eligible?

When I say “dead seriously” I’m thinking of the vast majority, people like Verducci and Heyman, Bill Madden, Jack O’Connell. I’m sure that you and our guy Peter Abraham will be exhaustive in your decision-making when you attain your voting rights. I like to think I take it dead seriously, and most do.

Now, there’s no accounting for taste. Obviously some people somehow think Mo Vaughn, Jay Bell and Jesse Orosco are Hall of Famers. How? I have no idea. Obviously, there are 28 people who think Rickey Henderson is not. How? Can’t possibly explain it—although there are some old-timers who for some crusty old reason don’t believe in first-ballot inductions for guys not named DiMaggio, Williams or Aaron.

Unfortunately, too, some writers hold off on guys they didn’t personally like, and I think that happened to Rice to some degree. The guy was an absolute jackass to the media, so it’s funny now seeing him being so humble on Red Sox telecasts, and this week as he learned of his election.

But the system works for the most part because you need 75 percent of the 540 or so votes cast to get in, and that keeps most of the questionable, borderline players out.

I agree with you that our job is to report the news, not to make it. But Cooperstown needed impartial, intelligent (well, some of us must be, right?) people to vote.

As for changing your mind on players, I agreed with you until now. Because this year I was convinced, mostly by reading something Madden wrote about Blyleven, who had not been on my ballot before. Sometimes, I guess, you gain perspective, or you find out that you made an error in keeping somebody off your ballot previously. I now think I was wrong all those years when I didn’t vote for Blyleven. Some people obviously changed their minds on Rice this year. And on Gossage the year before. That’s part of the process. It isn’t either he is or isn’t a Hall of Famer. It’s about getting it right.

I also agree with you that we’ve let in too many of those borderline players—Paul Molitor, Kirby Puckett, Don Sutton and dare I say this without the wrath of the many who disagree with me, Carlton Fisk. Now they’re talking about Bagwell? And Craig Biggio. Well, then Don Mattingly has to go in, right? And Roger Maris, one of the most Famous players ever. I’d like to see a Hall that’s a lot smaller. That includes just the greatest of the great, the true immortals of the sport.

Not Jay Bell.

12:35 a.m., Sam says:

Will I turn down my ballot? No, I wouldn’t, if this current system is still in place. If media are allowed to vote, I’ll vote – but I also wouldn’t be upset if the rules were changed because I think that an alternative system very likely could be better.

And what about the notion that people within in the game should vote? Why not have a similar system of longevity in place for experienced executives or scouts or personnel people getting to vote? Wouldn’t they have just as insightful an opinion as writers?

It’s possible (and likely) that there would still be voters doing stupid things – like never voting for anyone on the first ballot, which is just asinine. But I wonder if the perception would change more favorably since it wouldn’t be “dumb writers” – as some players would say – doing it anymore.

CARP SAYS:

I wouldn’t have a major problem if they gave the vote to another group, as long as that group isn’t just players or former players. I doubt very much they’d do as much research and put as much work into it as the writers do.

I also have a big problem with writers giving writers awards associated with the various Halls of Fame. I know writers who are “in” the baseball and hockey Halls of Fame, and we just DO NOT BELONG THERE. We have no right to put ourselves in there. None whatsoever. Broadcasters might be a different story, but it seems by and large they just go in for longevity and popularity more than for any real skill or talent. Fine. But writers? DO NOT BELONG IN THERE.

1:42 p.m., Sam says:

No way, Carpie – You’re a HOFer in my book!

CARP SAYS:

 Tell you what: You get me elected and I’ll wear an “SB” hat on my plaque. Seriously, though, Cooperstown is for guys like Bob Wolff and Vin Scully, not for schlubs like us.

It’s an abuse of our power to get writers in there. Although I’d vote you in over Jay Bell.

OK, no bailing out here. No, “It was a team loss so I blame all 53 guys.” We know it’s a team game. We know there are 53 guys that lost. I still want to see some finger-pointing. Give me someone (or, at most, two someones) who deserve a little more blame for how badly the Giants played yesterday against the Eagles.

For me, it’s Tom Coughlin (and, somewhat tangentially, Kevin Gilbride). I thought the play-calling yesterday, especially in the first half, was absolutely stupid. I remember turning to Giants beat writer Mike Dougherty at some point in the second quarter and saying, “Why doesn’t Jacobs have more carries?” At the time, I think he had like six – and Derrick Ward had nearly the same number.

I just don’t get why the Giants went away from a lot of what worked for them. I can accept that using Ward earlier might have been a ploy to keep the Eagles defense off-balance (since Ward is more of a pass-catching threat than Jacobs) but either way, why not establish that running game? Especially once it was clear that Eli Manning was having serious trouble passing in the hard wind? He probably deserved to have three or four interceptions, and was lucky the Eagles did turn him over more. Coughlin is the final call on deciding plays and strategy, so you have to look in his direction on this.

Then there was the fourth downs. Coughlin’s challenge of an official’s spot in the fourth quarter was foolish, particularly since he ended up going for it on fourth down once the challenge was lost anyway. If you’re going to go for it with a QB sneak, save the timeout! Then, a few minutes later, on another fourth down, Coughlin admitted it was his fault that he didn’t have a clear view of just how much yardage the Giants needed. He thought it was 4th and 1, it was really 4th and 2 and Jacobs fell just short on a run through the line. Afterward, Coughlin said, “I am going to take the second one. That is (on) me.”

Also on him was how he handled the kickers. After keeping Lawrence Tynes on the bench for basically the whole season, Coughlin brings back the long-distance kicker for this playoff game. Then, in a wind-swept stadium, he doesn’t use him on 46 and 47-yard field goals, going instead with shorter-but-accurate John Carney … and Carney misses two tries. If Tynes is on the roster, why not use him on the long ones? And if you weren’t, why bring him back at all and put a little doubt in Carney’s mind before the biggest game of the year?

It all adds up to too much. Coughlin did a great job last year in getting the Giants to the Super Bowl and then beating the undefeated Patriots. He deserves all the credit in the world. But yesterday was different. There was no magic touch from Coughlin at all. This time, he deserves the blame.

CARP SAYS:

My personal favorite blame-game is Harris Smith, a/k/a/ Plaxico Burress’ shooting himself in the leg. No doubt, they could have used Burress yesterday and throughout their final fade.

Little doubt they score a touchdown here or there with the Glockman in the lineup.

And I agree that Tom Coughlin fouled up a few times … the Eli sneak was dreadfully planned, dreadfully executed, and isn’t that what Brandon Jacobs is for? And then when Coughlin went for a fourth-and-two he thought was fourth-and-one (after wasting a timeout on a ridiculous challenge) Jacobs got the call. Only this time, Steve Smith was lined up tight—as a blocker????—in the short-yardage situation. Why not go goal-line and load up on big bodies there?

As for Jacobs not getting the ball enough, surely that has to do with what the Eagles were ready to do to stop the run. Sometimes coaches overcoach. They see an opponent stacked against the run, so they don’t run, as opposed to challenging the opponent to try and stop the run, or at least prove they can stop it before going away from the gameplan.

I’m giving Coughlin a pass on the kicker situation. Carney missed twice. That’s not on the coach or anybody else.

Eli? Yes, Eli was bad. But he got worse as the Eagles gave him and the Giants less, and that often happens to quarterbacks. Did you see Jake Delhomme? Eli also made some fabulous throws. Besides, he gets a free ride for a few years after his near-perfect Super Bowl run.

Anyway, what this disaster tells you is how unbelievable last year really was. Because in today’s NFL, you have, what, a 50-50 shot of winning against any team in the playoffs? The Eagles are a for-real team. They may not be the Giants of last year, but they have done exactly what the Giants did the first two weeks of the playoffs, and who’s to say they won’t win it all in Tampa?

Here’s a theory I heard last night, dumb as it is: That the four teams the Giants beat in the playoffs last year all missed the playoffs this year, so they couldn’t have been that good. Huh?

Me, I’m tired of athletes acting badly. Donavan McNabb at least showed remorse for his phone call (above) at the Giants bench, and he never, that I heard or read, trotted out the Giants’ favorite “nobody gave us a chance” garbage.

Assante Samuel was pretty chatty after the game, and I’m thinking that if he had caught that Manning pass that hit him in the hands last February in Glendale, the Patriots are undefeated Super Bowl champs and the Giants were just another team that had a good run.

And I’m still waiting for Antonio Pierce to say, “A lot of people doubted us … and they were right.”

The dumbest thing said all day may have been Jerry Reese saying it was possible that Harris Smith, er, Burress, might be back in a Giants uniform. The guy sabotaged your whole season and you’re going to let him back in? Not me. I never want to see his selfish face or his sideways hat or his Glock again. I never want to have to fine him again for missing practice or not showing up for treatment, or for doing something else really, really stupid.

10:35 a.m., Sam says:

Hold on, Carp—I said “no bailing out”! Who do you blame? More than anyone, who’s responsible?

Point some fingers!!!!!

CARP SAYS:

I’m not bailing out. I thought Coughlin stunk. I thought Eli stunk. I thought the offense stunk.

But I also thought the Eagles were pretty darn great. I mean, at the Super Bowl last year, nobody wrote about how bad the Patriots were. It was Giants This and Giants That, and about the Miracle and the Upset of the Century and how great and wonderful this all was.

Sometimes you get beat. You want to blame one person or one play or one phase of the game? Go ahead. Because there isn’t one person, or one play, or one phase of the game that lost to the Eagles. It was every phase—even the defense, which gave up that crucial third-and-20.

If you blame John Carney, then that’s just a classic knee-jerk, Monday-morning second-guess.

Here’s another hilarious notion: That the bye week had something to do with this. Please.

It’s ridiculous to point to one thing or another. Now I guess somebody has to be fired or traded, right? Is that the next step in this stupid Blame Game?

12:25 p.m., Sam says:

Sorry, Carp, on many days I’d be right there with you and saying we should be giving the Eagles credit – but not this time. Go ahead, tell me which Eagles players you think had a terrific game yesterday – McNabb? Westbrook? Dawkins? Just tell me which stats jump out at you from Philly as the ones that gave them the game.

There aren’t any. The Eagles played fine. Considering the conditions, they probably played better-than-average. But they didn’t play so much better than the Giants that it was just “one of those days.” It wasn’t just one of those days. The Giants played like garbage in the biggest game of their season.

Now is one person to blame? Certainly not. But that isn’t question. The question is, looking at the assembled performances of the Giants, who do you think was most at fault? Who’s performance (or lack thereof) hurt the team the most?

No one is getting fired. No one is getting traded. But it’s also pretty simplistic to just say, “everyone is equally to blame.” It’s particularly simplistic to say that when no one minds saying, “Eli was the difference” or “Jacobs was the difference” after a win. Why single people out then but now now?

My contention is that, of all the bad showings yesterday, Coughlin’s was the one that crushed the Giants more than any other. I’d love to know who you think hurt them most.

CARP SAYS:

Sorry, I can’t play your game. You want to blame Coughlin more than Hixon or Webster or Carney or Manning? Go ahead. Gun to my head, I’d go, in this order: Coughlin (and his staff), Eli, Burress.

But that’s just silly.

1:02 p.m., Sam says:

See, I think it’s silly to just gloss over what went wrong, especially when it’s not necessarily clear-cut. In the Panthers-Cardinals game, Jake Delhomme and his six turnovers deserved most of the blame. That was obvious. This one wasn’t.

The Eagles weren’t awesome. They just weren’t. And the Giants were flat-out bad. They just were, despite the fact they had a more talented team. Why did that happen?

Three seasons ago, the Giants lost to the Eagles in the playoffs, 23-20. That was a tight, tough game, and they lost on a last-second field goal. Then they went into an offseason where the world was upside down and Tom Coughlin very nearly got fired.

This loss was uglier but obviously won’t bring the same calls for massive change. But what change will come this summer? Something’s gotta happen, right?

 CARP SAYS:

 OK, here’s one for you. How about the offensive line?  If those guys, who were the best in the league for most of the season, had opened just a little bit of daylight for Eli on the sneak and for Jacobs on the 4th-and-2, then maybe the Giants (who were supposedly so awful) win the game, and you and I and everybody in the pressbox and all the TV analysts are barely even mentioning Coughlin’s decisions or Manning’s performance; barely would have noticed them.

The Giants weren’t awful. They weren’t. They were just bad enough to lose a game they could have won.

Honestly. The calls for Coughlin’s head and for Eli being a total bust after the Eagles playoff game in ‘07 were a cumulation of a season gone completely wrong (Jets-like and Mets-like) at the end, and Coughlin was terribly unpopular at the time.

As far as this bringing about change—or as you ask “something’s got to happen, right?”—a GM with a brain doesn’t react in anger and doesn’t make change to punish people for a loss or a season. Jerry Reese is a really smart guy. Change will happen naturally. He has to decide which running back he will lose (and I don’t think it’s a slam dunk, because Brandon Jacobs’ knee has to be part of the equation). He has to replace Glock Burress with a threat at receiver. Some guys will leave as free agents. Some guys will be available as better alternatives to what the Giants have. Justin Tuck and some of the others may need surgery. Osi Umenyiora’s return has to be weighed in terms of when he’ll be 100 percent. It’s a big, big, long process, and it should have nothing to do with whether the Giants lost or won on Sunday.

I mean, did you see Jake Delhomme last night? Geez, is he retiring, too? That was one God-awful postseason performance, especially for a guy who’s not over the hill and who has a lot of experience.

The Giants better have been paying attention yesterday, paying attention to how quickly a season can end if you turn over the football and take bad penalties.

Today’s over-under is 40, and I’m wondering if that’s 40 Giants-Eagles points or 40 Giants fans-Eagles fans fights in the stands, or 40 ejections for heaving snowballs onto the field.

Of course, there isn’t as much snow as there was supposed to be, and the Giants Stadium crew should have most of it up by morning. What happened to that forecast for 10 inches? If that was 10 inches, then I’m about 25 feet tall.

Today in The Journal News and LoHud.com, Sam wrote a column about how silly it is that the Eagles are being called “The new Giants.” You can read that here.

I stayed local, and did a column on two inspiring kids from Pearl River High, one who died a year ago from bone cancer and was to have his hockey number retired last night, and another who went out and played a great basketball game the same day he buried his mom. You can see that here.

I’m out for now.

I think the G-men have a better chance to win the Super Bowl in Tampa then they had of winning the one in Glendale last year. They’re missing, obviously, Michael Strahan, Osi Umenyiora, Jeremy Shockey, and Harris Smith, er, Plaxico Burress. But last year they were without Mathias Kiwanuka and Derrick Ward and Jeremy Shockey.

Who’s here and who’s not isn’t the reason I think they’re better. I think they’re better because last January they became a great team, when Eli Manning took off, when all those young players became contributors, when the defensive and offensive lines became dominant. They run the ball better this year, they are potentially better defensively, and we now know that Eli can manage the game and take care of the football.

I think they’re winning it all again, and I know they won’t have to play a team as good as the team they beat in Glendale.

The only problem is, if they need a miracle, David Tyree isn’t around.

Sam and I make picks every week. Last week, I missed on both of the Saturday games and hit on both Sunday games for a 2-2 start to the postseason. Sam was a fine 3-1. (ps, Sam, I won the college bowl picking championship, with a 22-12 record to your 18-16).

We’d love to hear your picks for this divisional round weekend. Send them along. Let’s see if anybody can go 4-0, or if anybody can hit any of the scores on the nose. Scores only, OK?

SATURDAY
TITANS 20, Ravens 10.
PANTHERS 33, Cardinals 17.

SUNDAY
GIANTS 24, Eagles 10.
STEELERS 28, Chargers 7.

9:45 a.m., Sam says:

Apropos of pretty much nothing, let me just mention that I saw “Slumdog Millionaire” with Mrs. Borden last night and it was pretty fantastic. I am not a huge movie-goer but this was a film with an original premise, great acting and a terrific pace that made the whole thing flow beautifully. Also, I happen to love house and techno music, and the Indian beats on the soundtrack were excellent. I give it four Carps out of five.

I also give the readers of this blog a strong score because the past few days have been fun. We’ve have had some great debates and hopefully we’ll keep it going.

As for the Giants, I think it’s pretty obvious they’re better than last year’s team, if only because of the whole Parcells-ism, “You are what your records says you are.” The Giants’ record says they were one of the best teams this year at the end of the regular season; last year, that wasn’t the case.

The Giants are also in a better position this year than last. A bye is helpful, plus there isn’t a historic juggernaut awaiting them at the end of the road like last year’s Patriots. I truly believe that if they win tomorrow, against Philly, they will win the Super Bowl.

On that note, on to the picks:

SATURDAY:

Ravens 17, TITANS 14
PANTHERS 28, Cardinals 14

SUNDAY:
GIANTS 28, Eagles 21
STEELERS 14, Chargers 10

I love New York. I love it a lot. I think almost everything about it is great, including (most of) its sports teams.

Not everyone feels this way. In fact, there are a lot of people who hate New York. Absolutely hate it. And some (if not most) of those people frequently prefer to see New York’s sports teams in a perpetual state of choking/gagging/downright disaster.

Philadelphians (seem to) make up a large percentage of this group. It was only a few weeks ago that Cole Hamels called the Mets choke-artists during an interview on a New York radio station. New Yorkers were upset by these remarks; Philadelphians thought he was kicking off a campaign for Mayor

In other words, we know the rivalry between Philly and New York is intense, and nowhere is that phenomenon displayed more prominently than Giants-Eagles. The passion runs deep and the hatred – even among the players – is legitimate.

But is it the best? Is it the hardest, toughest rivalry in New York? Is it bigger than Yankees-Red Sox? Or Rangers-Islanders? Or Mets-Phillies?

That’s the question today. Let’s talk about it, get a little dialog going. To start it off, I’ll give you my ranking of the top 5 rivalries in New York:

1. Yankees-Red Sox
2. Giants-Eagles
3. Rangers-Islanders
4. Jets-Patriots
5. Mets-Phillies

What’s yours?

CARP SAYS:

Red Sox-Yankees, no doubt, is the best rivalry in sports, certainly the best involving a New York team. And do you know they have only played three times in the postseason—all in the Joe Torre era? It just seems like more.

I wonder, though, if Eagles-Giants really is as big as Cowboys-Giants. I know, they’re separated by half a country and that they have only played in one playoff game (last year’s Giants win over Cryin’ Terrell and A-Rom). But I think there’s more feeling to that one. The Eagles and Giants really don’t like each other, and the Philly fans (the ones who say, for example, when the Giants are playing the Cowboys, “I’m rooting for injuries”) are a despicable group, but I do question whether that’s bigger than ‘Boys-Blue.

Rangers-Islanders has certainly waned during the Isles’ down years (since, what, ‘92?) and in the early-through-mid ‘90s Rangers-Devils raged much hotter. Earlier than that, between the Isles’ Cup years and the Rangers Cup, it was Rangers-Flyers. Before the Islanders got good in the ‘80s, it was Rangers-Bruins.

I’ll tell you, though, there are some hotter rivalries in hockey, for sure, than Rangers-anybody. Calgary-Edmonton absolutely hate each other, and that one gets ugly pretty often. And Detroit-Colorado, too. In hockey the rivalries tend to fester more because you are more likely to play your rival in a playoff series, and nothing revs it up like seven games in two weeks, each game played more angrily than the last.

Your last two, Sam, are more recent rivalries than storied. The Jets’ main rival was always Miami before the Pats stole their coach, won a bunch of Super Bowls, sent them Eric Mangini and cheated via video tape. And the Mets’ nemesis was Atlanta for a long time before the last two, ahem, “choke-artist” performances. Before that it was the Cardinals.

12:45 p.m., Sam says:

The history aspect is important, there’s no doubt. Mets/Anyone is tough to compare to Yanks/Sox if only because the Mets have no particular historic rival. It’s one of the things that makes Yanks/Sox so compelling – it’s been going on for sooooooo long, it just comes naturally.

Here’s another one to consider: Where would you rank Jack Nicklaus vs. Arnold Palmer? Or Tiger vs. Phil? Does that make the list? I think Arnie/Jack might in the top 5, certainly ahead of Jets/Pats. Thoughts?

CARP SAYS:

Arnie-Jack was definitely a great one, probably top 5. How about Bjorg-McEnroe-Connors? Affirmed-Alydar?

UCLA-Houston hoops in the days of Lew Alcindor and Elvin Hayes? Or Ewing-Hakeem?

There have always been huge geographical rivalries in college sports, probably as big locally as Yankees-Sox are here.

A couple of summers ago, I wrote that the Rangers were about to throw giant gobs of money at two “B-list free agents” and Rangers fans were all over me. Chris Drury and Scott Gomez were two of the best three players available that July, 2007, they said. How dare you call them “B-listers?”

The point, simply, was that Gomez and Drury are both excellent players, but neither of them is a franchise-type star. Neither is going to get you 50 goals or 100 points or win an MVP or make a run at the Hall of Fame. They aren’t in the conversation when you talk about the best players in the game today, and not even likely to be selected to play in the all-star game.

OK? That’s what I was talking about. This, now, is what I’m taking about. I don’t have a problem with the money they’re making (although it sure hamstrings the salary cap). I like both guys, and I think the Rangers made a good move to go get them. I just don’t think that if they’re your top two guys (behind Henrik Lundqvist, who’s an “A-lister” by any definition) that you have enough to win a championship.

And now that Jaromir Jagr is out, and Brendan Shanahan, and even Martin Straka and Sean Avery, I don’t see the makeup of the Rangers, team halfway through the season, as being good enough. With that goalie, coach Tom Renney and their system, they will compete, they can win playoff rounds. But they’re not sniffing the Cup.

As you all know better than I, too, the Rangers don’t have A) an offensive defenseman to run the power play and create for Drury and skill guys like Nik Zherdev or B) a shutdown defender who can handle, say, a Evgeni Malkin. They spent their D-dollars this year on passion-less Wade Redden, who now makes it obvious why Ottawa let him go free.

The Rangers are OK. They play hard most nights, they are built to win low-scoring playoff-type games. But after 42 games they are 24-15-3. That’s the new NHL math, where you get a win for a shootout win (the Rangers are 8-1 in those) and a tie for an overtime loss. In the old days, an OTL would be a loss, and a tie would be a tie, and the Rangers’ current record would have translated into 16-17-9.

10:35 a.m., Sam says:

Carpie, I knew what you were saying years ago but it’s tough – most stars seem over-rated or overpaid, and it’s only once in a while that a player comes along who is a can’t-miss. Jimmy Dolan, unfortunately, seems to see them a lot more often.

I see the Rangers with a little more potential than you. I think they’ve got just enough scoring and just enough defense (and just enough coaching) to get them to the playoffs, and once they get there they’ve got more than enough goaltender to actually go all the way.

Is that likely? Probably not. Certainly no more likely than, say, the Hurricanes making a run in 2006. But a hot goalie is what it take and even though Henrik Lundqvist didn’t look great last night, he’s still one of the best. And in some years, that’s enough.

CARP SAYS: 

Yes, it’s all system and goalie and coach in the playoffs, but loads of teams have those, and it’s unrealistic to think these Rangers will make a Carolina-like run, or that they’re more likely than any other team to do so.

More likely in the playoffs, the team that wins out will have the goalie and the coach and the system and a couple of offensive studs and some strong, sure defensemen and really good special teams. There ain’t no shootouts in the postseason, you know?

Joe Girardi had barely sat down in front of a group of reporters yesterday before he was hit with the question: 3 or 4?

Everyone wanted to know where new first baseman Mark Teixeira was going to bat in the Yankees lineup.
Girardi begged off, saying, “I have my thoughts” before making it clear he wants input “from everyone” on the best way to order his hitters in 2009.

Presumably Girardi meant input from his coaches, but I think we should take a broader view of his use of “everyone” and chime in with our take, too. So ….

What is the best lineup (including positions) for the 2009 Yankees?

Obviously this is based on the roster as currently assembled. I’ll even throw in the pitchers, too. Here’s mine:

Damon LF
Jeter SS
Teixeira 1B
Rodriguez 3B
Matsui DH
Posada C
Nady RF
Cano 2B
Gardner CF

This is based on a few things: First, that Girardi said yesterday that Nady is the RF, and that there will be an open competition between Gardner/Cabrera for CF (thus ruling out Swisher or Damon as a full-timer there). As we’ve learned, yet again, this offseason, don’t believe everything the Yankees say, but let’s play along for now.

I also think it’s wise for the Yankees to follow the Angels model and bat Teixeira in front of A-Rod, just as he hit in front of Vlad Guerrero. In that situation, Teixeira batted .358 with 13 homers and 43 RBI. I reserve the right, however, to flop those spots come the postseason, when A-Rod is notoriously bad with RISP and might do better hitting in front of Teixeira and leaving the big RBI opportunities for someone else.

As for the pitchers: Sabathia, Wang, Burnett, Chamberlain, Hughes. Not sure why I pick Hughes, but I just think he’s going to win the job in spring training. Interesting, too, that Phil Coke was told to work as a starter this winter. He will be in the mix.

Here’s a question for another day: If Joba is the fourth starter, what’s going to happen when he reaches his innings limit around early September?

CARP SAYS:

I like your lineup the way it is, only because it’s impossible to say how much protection Teixeira would provide behind A-Rod as opposed to how much protection A-Rod provides to Teixeira.

Here’s the thing, though. With Teixeira in front of Rodriguez, late in games it will be a tough call for opposing managers to bring in a lefty specialist for Teixeira with A-Rod on deck, followed by the lefty Matsui. If Tex bats behind A-Rod, then you can carefully pitch to (or walk, depending on the situation) Rodriguez and bring in the lefty to face Teixeira, Matsui and Posada.

Anyway, if A-Rod’s doing his usual odd-numbered-year, MVP-caliber thing, I like him batting cleanup more than third.

I can’t wait to tackle the Joba issue once again. Here’s a minor question, too: What is Swisher’s job now? No need to answer that, because it’s not important.

The question I have about Teixeira, though, is this: If he wanted (and his wife wanted him) to be a Yankee so badly, then why did he wait for the offer to go from $160 million to $180 million? I believe him, that the Yankees were his first choice. I don’t believe for a moment, though, that he would have been a Yankee if the Yankees stopped at $160M and Boston or another team offered $180M. Not for a second.

11:55 a.m., Sam says:

Carp, you’re right about the Red Sox part. As I mentioned in my column today, Cashman thought the Teixeira was going to the Red Sox as late as 11 a.m. on the day he eventually agreed to a deal with the Yankees. This guy is a businessman – he was about the contract.

Loving some of the responses we’re getting on the lineups. Just for fun, here’s Teixeira’s career splits hitting third and fourth:

Position BA HR RBI R OBP SLG
3rd .311 82 293 238 .394 .573
4th .278 77 247 211 .378 .523

If you don’t think numbers-crazy Girardi will be looking at these, you’re nuts. It’s worth noting, too, that Teixeira has about 120 more career at-bats hitting third.

CARP SAYS:

There you have it. He hits third. Maybe he drives in Damon and Jeter. And gets stranded on base by A-Rod.

Here’s another thing about Teixeira. I think he’s a great “get” and that he will be a fine and productive citizen, like Tino Martinez was—hard-working, honest, good guy in the clubhouse, great defensive player.

But just because the Yankees gave him the bank—as they were asking NYC for hundreds of millions, all while planning on fleecing their own fans now and forever more—doesn’t mean he’s going to turn into a superstar, a 40- or 50-home run guy, or a Hall of Famer. He might, of course, if he contines to improve, but we’ve seen big contract raise expectations and antes, and you know that dollars can’t translate into statistics. Indeed, sometimes dollars and expectations hamper statistics.