Back

I am back from covering the World Beer Festival in Durham.

I highly recommend the event for any beer fans out there. They hold it at the home of the Durham Bulls - an absolutely beautiful ballpark. We stayed a ten minute walk away at the Morehead Manor Bed and Breakfast. If you ever have reason to be in Durham, I both recommend staying at the B&B and visiting the stadium for a game (season permitting).

Now onto the busy sports news of the last couple of days. I'm going to start with the Pats before I get to the Sox...

I was happy to see the Pats win. There were a number of things that I found encouraging that the team did on Sunday. However, there were times that the offensive line looked overwhelmed, and there were times that the Niners gashed the Patriots in the middle of the defensive line. Those things keep me concerned moving forward.

As does the fact that Cassel has only once thrown the ball away to avoid the sack.

Fairly or unfairly, Cassel will be compared to Tom Brady for the whole season. Unfairly, it will be to the Tom Brady of 2007, not 2001 when Brady, like Cassel, was still wet behind the ears and filling in for an accomplished veteran. I'm not going to make the mistake of comparing him to Brady.07.

No. What I'm going to do is look at what an untested, unproven late round draft-pick does from start to start against what another untested, late round draft pick did when he got his shot.

And the biggest difference between the two? After four appearances, including three starts (for both) Brady had been sacked eight times for 45 yards. Cassel has absorbed 15 sacks for 68 yards - a pace that will get him sacked 60 times during the season (Brady was sacked 41 times in 14 starts/15 games. Even projecting for Cassel's 16 games, Brady still would only have been sacked 47 times). He has to get better at just getting rid of the ball when there's nothing there.

Otherwise, this is how the two compare -

Cassel - 3-1 (2-1 as the starter), 70 of 104 for 707 yards (67.3 completion percentage), 3 TD's, 3 INT's.

Brady - 2-2 (2-1 as the starter and the team was 3-2 overall), 63 of 111 for 664 yards (56.8 completion percentage), 2 TD's, 0 INT's.

Brady's offense had turned the ball over eight times in the four games in which he appeared, to six times for the Cassel led teams.

The other interesting stat lies on the other side of the ball. The defenses in both seasons for the first four games in which they were dealing with the back-up signal caller on offense gave up exactly 79 points. The defense in 2001 forced six turnovers from the fateful Jets game in which Bledsoe injured himself, through to their 29-26 victory over the Chargers (putting the team at -2 in the turnover ratio). This year's defense has forced five (putting this year's team at -1).

As I've said before - I don't expect Cassel to develop into Tom Brady. But I think that Patriot Nation needs to back off. Despite his flaws, and I acknowledge he has 'em and they do worry me, I think we need to be patient with him.

Four of the team's next six opponents make up four of the five worst pass defenses in the league. Throw in a Colts team that seems to be clawing and scrounging for every win it gets, the hardest game between now and week 11 appears to be with the Bills.

If Cassel can guide the team to a 4-2 record during that stretch, not out of the question given the fact that the only team that looks truly dominant right now is playing in the Meadowlands (and I'm not talking about Gang Green), a 7-3 record at game ten puts the Pats in good position for a ten win season, and a likely playoff berth given that the only team in the AFC that looks en route to 12+win potential is Tennessee.

And onto the playoffs...

And so the Red Sox move on.

It seems like they're doing it differently each time.

In 2004 they had to come back from the brink. They did it with veterans - it was Curt Schilling and Derek Lowe and Pedro Martinez. It was David Ortiz, Dave Roberts, Manny Ramirez, Trot Nixon and Kevin Millar. The list goes on, but it was a largely veteran squad of mostly imports that liked to go by the name "the Idiots".

It was appropriate. They were loud, grungy, silly and had a lot of fun.

In 2007 the team absolutely dominated the Angels in the first round, scrapped around with the Indians in the second, winning that series 4-3. In the games the Sox won that round they averaged 10 runs per game while holding the Indians to an average of 2 runs per game. And then the Sox stomped on the hottest team in baseball, sweeping the World Series.

This year the Sox are getting it done with a lot of home-grown talent mixed with mid-season acquisitions. Jon Lester, Manny Delcarmen, Jed Lowrie, Kevin Youkilis, Jacoby Ellsbury, Jason Bay, Mark Kotsay.

This year there are no Colorado Rockies-type teams in the playoffs.

There were the Angels who won more games than any other team in baseball. Three more than the Rays and five more than the Red Sox. They still buy into their own hype, believing they were better than the Red Sox.

Yes, the Red Sox got lucky bounces, and didn't drop balls, and didn't miss the clutch hits - except in game three when they had multiple opportunities to put the game away. They did things that the top teams are expected to do - perform under pressure, make the plays when needed. John Lackey can believe that the Angels are the better team all he wants. It doesn't make it true.

The better team doesn't outright miss getting the glove on routine grounders at short. The centerfielder doesn't pull up and fail to call off the second baseman on a short pop-fly to shallow center, a move that costs the team three runs. The better team's closer doesn't spit the bit in real pressure situations. I could go on, but I won't.

I do want to touch on Jon Lester, though.

He got jobbed out of a win in game four, but that's okay, the team won. Lester has been absolutely dominant in the post season, throwing 22 and 2/3's scoreless innings over three starts. Only one lefty in the history of the sport has thrown more in October - Babe Ruth with 29. Now we're seeing the team head into a potential seven game series against the Rays with a rotation that should see both Josh Beckett and Jon Lester pitch twice if it goes to a seven game series.

While the Rays have been impressive this year, this is new territory for them, but it's old hat for the Olde Town Team. Just because it's old hat, however, doesn't mean it's a sure thing...which brings me to my last thought.

Yes, I want to see the Sox win it all again - but I won't be crushed if the Rays do (I think that the eventual winner of the World Series will come out of the American League). Why, one might ask, wouldn't I be upset at the Rays winning?

Well, I won't lie - I would be disappointed if the Sox didn't make it, but there's a certain poetic MLB flipping of the metaphorical finger to the Steinbrenners should the team with the second lowest payroll in the league walk away with the championship. There's just something beautiful about that. Maybe no more than seeing the Sox win their third in five seasons, but it's still pretty damn good.

Grinding it out

It wasn't Jon Lester's prettiest win of the season. The lefty was not at his sharpest. He repeatedly fell behind hitters, running too many counts full. He had thrown over 50 pitches through his first three innings.

But he did what aces are supposed to do when they're struggling with their command. He found a way.

He pitched seven innings without giving up an earned run. He gave his team a chance when their post-season horse was sitting on the bench, recovering from a muscle strain. This could be the beginning of the end for the Angels.

The team has now dropped 10 straight post-season tilts with the Sawx, and last night, when the Boston nine were padding their lead, when Masterson, who didn't look sharp, got out of the inning, the Angels were shown sitting on the bench, mouths open and shaking their heads in disbelief.

This wasn't supposed to happen to them. They were healthy, the Sox were not, they had home-field, the Sox did not. They were supposed to wake up this morning up 1-0 in the series. They did not.

Because Lester is beginning to become the ace I argued he could be.

Because Lester is becoming the pitcher the Twins thought he would, the pitcher that would replace Santana in the Twins rotation.

Because the Red Sox are simply better in clutch games.

Putting the "fun" in dysfunction...

"Just win, baby."

Welcome to Raider football.

Define "win."

That press conference that the Crypt Keeper held the other day was a farce. I'm at the point where I pity Raiders fans (and let's face a basic truth about Al Davis, if there were even an iota of truth in his tampering accusation, he would have filed charges with the league over a year ago).

The NFL's answer to Howard Hughes has not only challenged the Ford family for most inept handling of a franchise, but might have past them - at least you can make the argument that the retaining of Millen was an attempt to give the franchise some consistency and give them an opportunity to build something.

Davis gave his coach a quarterback he didn't want, staff he didn't want, and other players he didn't want -the man is trying to make square pegs fit into non-existent holes, and then is blaming the pegs for the failure to fit.

Two quick things...

I don't like to get political at my blog, but I have to see if any of my readers can enlighten me - from what I have gathered, most of the people who support McCain and the Republican Party in the coming election claim to do so on the following two points; that McCain is a better selection for Commander-in-Chief because he was a captain in the Navy, and because Republicans are better in regards to national security issues. Where did these myths start?

McCain was a captain whose career had stalled - the Pentagon didn't feel he was fit to rise higher than captain (he was a pilot - which meant he spent time in a cockpit, but not leading troops into combat - who logged a total of about 20 combat hours and lost five planes) and is now asking the American people to give him a promotion that his bosses didn't believe he qualified for.

As for the second item - where did this myth begin? The Republicans are better with national security issues?

World War I and II, the last two major wars that we came out of in which our leadership is considered to have not made major blunders and handled poorly - Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Harry S. Truman - all Democrats. Korea and Vietnam, the reigning president at the end of both wars? Eisenhower and Nixon/Ford - Korea wasn't so bad, but Vietnam was an absolute mess.

Now we have a party hell bent on not having the same resolution as Vietnam, in spite of the fact that it's come out that there was no intelligence that supported an invasion, that, by every analysis, stateside security has been weakened by this war, and our troops are being depleted in a place they should never have been in the first place. These are the security experts?

Just because someone is insane, doesn't make them a psychiatrist.

Sorry for the rant.

As for the other item - I'm off for the weekend. I will have my laptop with me, but I don't know if I will be able to blog. It is a working weekend, so I will also have to work to make time to watch game two. I will be in Durham, NC covering the World Beer Festival.

Tough life, huh?

The Wolf at the Door, and other thoughts

The Red Sox are on the verge - the veritable edge. Even though they were the third team to clinch a playoff spot and an invitation to the Dance, they are the last team in. They are on the precipice, looking down at the abyss with the mighty Angels standing behind him, ready to push them into oblivion.

At least, that's what a lot of the pundits would have you believe - that the Red Sox needed to win the division and hope that the wild card Rays would knock off the Angels. They'll point to the Angel's 8-1 record against Boston this year, or the fact that the Angels batted .053 higher in those nine games, or even that they outscored the Sox 61-33.

Yes, these are all trends that could indicate doom for the Sox - a brief appearance in the first round. It could easily be argued that it's very likely, based on those numbers, that the Sox are toast. Hell, Jon Lester's career ERA against the Angels is over seven and Daisuke Matsuzaka's is over 10 - not exactly reassuring.

The team could easily be down 0-2 by the time they return to Fenway.

At least that's the trend indicated by numbers. The numbers don't trend well for the Sox. That is a fact.

Of course, that doesn't include the Angels 0-6 record against the Red Sox in post-season play this decade, having been swept twice.

It's also a fact that until 2004 no team in the history of baseball had ever come back from a 3-0 deficit in a seven game series. Until this year, no first baseman had come close to Steve Gavey's errorless streak of 194 games.

To cross sports - the numbers didn't favor the Celtics winning the way they played in the post-season up until the finals. No team in the history of the NFL has ever completed a 16-0 regular season...except for the Patriots last season. No team has ever won 20 regular season games in a row...until the Pats did it. Until this year, no one has ever returned home from the Olympics with as many as seven gold medals. Until 2004, no cyclist had more than five total Tour de France victories. Based on trends, all of the above accomplishments were unlikely.

I'm not saying I think the Red Sox are going to win. I'm hoping they do - but they have their work cut out for them. They will have to fight and scrape to stave off the wolf at the door.

The bottom line is that this is a team that's going to have to adopt the persona of the right side of their in-field. They will have to be the Dirt Dogs, the scrappers, and brawlers. They have to come back to Fenway with at least a split.

The bottom line is that this is an opportunity for one of these two teams to buck a trend and get a monkey off its back - the Angels post-season woes against the Red Sox, or the Sox breaking the monkey of a season in which they barely were able to steal a win from the Angels.

Other things...

Terrell Owens is whining that he didn't get the ball enough in the Cowboys' home loss to the Redskins on Sunday. He's whining after a game in which Tony Romo had 47 attempts, 17 of them went to Owens.

The volatile receiver caught seven passes for 71 yards and a touchdown. He also dropped three, including a late touchdown that would have put the Cowboys ahead, and short-armed at least two others.

Maybe before he whines about the offensive coordinator not calling his number enough, he ought to make the plays on the catchable balls thrown his way.

Can't say this is a surprise, though. It was only a matter of time. Really, the only surprise here, to me, is that he kept it together this long.

I would also like to take a moment to wish good luck to now former Jacksonville offensive lineman Richard Collier who had to have a leg amputated after being shot during the preseason. Collier's life has changed radically in a brief period of time, going from being a monster of a human that pushed people around, to being paralyzed from the waist down. While a most unfortunate turn of events, Collier joins the likes of Sean Taylor and Darrent Williams as apparent targets of attackers.

Granted, Collier supposedly wasn't exactly in one of Jacksonville's high-end neighborhoods when shot, but one has to wonder if some of these players aren't putting themselves into harm's way. These are horrible things that no one deserves, but one still has to wonder.

Matthews Speaks...

Rolls over, and possibly plays dead apparently only on the advice of his lawyers.

Mattews yesterday finally came clean, sort of, with the general public, issuing a denial in the use of hGH to boost his on field performance. According to an AP report, the Angels issued a four paragraph release to the press that said the following:

"I have never taken hGH -- during the 2004 season or any other time. Nobody
has accused me of doing so, and no law enforcement authority has said I am a
target of any investigation for doing so.
"Before saying anything publicly I wanted to make absolutely sure of my
ground. In particular, I needed to try to learn whether anybody in authority --
in or out of baseball -- felt they had reason to accuse me of anything with
regard to hGH. If they did, I would have to deal with that. It has taken me, and
those representing me, 16 days to make certain that's not the case. And that is
why it has taken longer than I would have preferred to make a public
statement."

That statement comes approximately a week-and-a-half after the following from Matthews' lawyer, Robert Shapiro (of OJ Simpson fame):

"Gary wishes to cooperate with Major League Baseball, the Los Angeles Angels and
any other investigative agency that may look into this matter. He is eager to
tell his side of the story and looks forward to providing a statement once all
investigations into the matter have been completed.
"However, it is my long
standing policy not to allow clients to comment while an investigation is
ongoing. To do so would be inappropriate and I believe irresponsible."

Now, I will admit to being no lawyer, but these statements ring hollow and leave a whole series of other questions, but precious few answers. Let's cover some of them:

• If Matthews indeed never used hGH, then why wait 16 days to deny use?
• Why did he need to know if someone in baseball was going to accuse him of use before he could deny use?
• Sure, the investigation both he and his lawyer cite - but if he's clean, why did he need to wait?
• Couldn't he have issued a statement when first linked to the pharmacy records denying use and stating that he was sure his name would be cleared? I'm guessing not, or he would have done so. More on that below.
• If he was waiting on the results of this so called investigation to exonerate him, why not release the findings of the investigation?
• Why would it have been irresponsible to issue a "not guilty" earlier than this?
• And most importantly, can he address how his name, address and credit card "mistakenly" ended up in the database of a distributor of the drug along with an order attributed to him?

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes (or John Holmes for that matter) to deduce the following - the investigation was solely to establish that, beyond his enhanced numbers last season, there would be no way to link his order with him actually taking the hormones. Once they established that a potential break in the chain of evidence existed that would allow him his denial without the possibility of a "Palmiero" coming back to bite him in the ass, then - and only then - Shapiro told him to issue his denial.

Unfortunately he still left the question of how he got into that business' customer database, and really avoids answering the question of why the denial took so long. Personally, I don't buy what he and his lawyer are selling.

Interesting things are afoot at the Circle K...or over at the Razor...

According to a report in today's Boston Herald, Troy Brown is thinking about returning for a 15th season. It poses some questions since Brown has previously said he doesn't see him finishing his career anywhere else, but the Patriots are suddenly rich at wide receiver with the signings of Kelley Washington, Donte Stallworth, Wes "I'm Troy but younger" Welker, and hold-overs that include Reche Caldwell, Jabari Gaffney and Chad Jackson (currently recovering from knee surgery).

It's possible that Jackson will be on IR this upcoming season due to the tear in his ligament which is supposed to take 8 to 12 months to heal (the surgery was in February, so the earliest he will be running is likely to be August, and he probably won't be ready for hitting until the end of September - and that's if he recovers quickly).

Does Brown get resigned as a receiver low on the depth chart? Does he get resigned as a nickel-back? Does he still have enough in the tank to beat out any of the five healthy receivers that the team has under contract - all of whom are younger than him?

I would like to see him go out on his own terms, and go out as a Patriot - but with the current roster, is that really possible? I don't know.