Perspective

There are much worse things that could have happened in the desert on Sunday than the Patriots loss, according to this story that's not getting a lot of attention.

Thankfully, the man came to his senses and turned himself in.

No Excuses

I'm a little disappointed.

More in my fellow Pats fans than in the game.

I'm beginning to see the excuses surface from Patriots fans. The clock was mismanaged by the refs, the Patriots gave the game away, Arlen Specter brought up Spygate at an inopportune time. It's all a crock.

The Patriots were outplayed, pure and simple.

We saw from week two that the this team could put aside the distractions of Spygate, and there was nothing unusual about how the clock was run (I saw the film, and all I can say is the guy who did that didn't have a full understanding of how the clock gets run, and maybe he should look up the rules before he starts any conspiracy theory. I won't justify his theory any further by posting a link to it).

The team was lucky that the defense played as well as they did, or this could have been a rout because our offense was smoked. The defense, in spite of two crucial misses in the last minute (the missed sack and the missed interception), kept the team in the game.

As for the excuses - do you, as a Patriots fan, really want to be lumped in with the Ravens fan conspiracy theorists, or the Raiders fans that still whine that they had the game stolen from them based on a rule that's in the books?

Stop the excuses, stop the whining and deal with the pain. After decades of last minute losses by the Red Sox and Patriots, have we really become so soft that we can't recognize the Giants' accomplishment?

Get it together people, I don't want to be embarrassed to be a New England fan. Make me proud and take it like a fan that actually knows the game well enough to know that our team was handed their hats.

The changing face of the sports media

Please bear with me on this - I will get to the sports side of things.

It's more than the sports media. There has been a trickle down effect.

News has become entertainment.

It is why a couple of reporters did something for the Washington Post in the 1970's that could never happen now. It is why the press has failed in its responsibility as a watchdog over politics and industry over the last decade. We read about some nut-job woman from Atlanta who bails on her fiance and runs to Vegas for almost two months, but watch the press treat the current administration largely with kids gloves in spite of the myriad of Constitutional offenses that the current group appears to be guilty of.

The closest we've seen to Woodward and Bernstein in the last 30 years has been Fainaru-Wada and Williams in the case of Barry Bonds.

Hard hitting reporting is a dying breed in favor of the Fox Newsettes, the pretty faces that have taken the place of your Walter Cronkites and Charles Kuralts. The sons of Walter Winchell, the preachers of the gossip column have taken control.

An unfortunate and fortunate side-effect of the overall impact of the Washington Post's Watergate reporting has been that public figures' private lives have become public. It has become more important for the media to cover things like Tony Romo spending a weekend with Jessica Simpson, or the fact that Bill Belichick wears a hoodie on the sideline, than what's happening between the hashmarks. It's more important that we know that Jenna Bush is getting married or publishing a children's book than it is that our vice president may have been directly involved in the dismissal of federal District Attorneys for nothing more than political reasons.

And the reason is that we, as a news consuming public, eat it up. We demand the fluff stories, writing off the important news of the day as boring.

It runs from the hard news through to the sports news.

We call for changes to the games, to the leagues...as long as the team we root for is kept out of it. We revel in the embarrassment of the other teams, and more often than we should, act as though our teams are innocent of wrong-doing. As fans, we have the arrogance to believe that we root for people that are clean.

And when our teams our caught, our favorite players nailed, we circle the wagons. Bonds apologists will claim that steroids have no real impact on the sport, but be unable to explain why, then, players use them.

Fans of other teams go on the attack, in spite of the fact that everything in the history of sport shows us that at the worst possible time that those same teams that people are fans of will have some scandal of their own - multiple criminals like the Bengals, a pleasure cruise gone awry in Minnesota, a number of different baseball players representing almost every team in the majors on a list of steroid and HGH users, a boxer's name being linked to an illegal HGH ring shortly before a title bout.

Sometimes the players are caught in off-field shenanigans like Alex Rodriguez, or going on an innocent vacation with their girl-friend in what should be non-stories for the sports page, but they take on a life of their own because we dig in like jackalls.

People complain about the press, but we keep coming back, because what they give us is what we (as a society) want. It's what sells the papers. The irrelevant. The stupid and innocuous.

Reporting about sports was once about great feats on the field of play, and the occasional trade. Now it's as much about business and gossip as anything else.

Is it jealousy? Possibly. Great resentment festers in the light of great success. It's why in the 1970's there were people who hated the Dallas Cowboys, and, more recently, the Yankees of the 1990's, and right now, the Boston professional sport scene.

I have no problem with the resentment. I just wish we would focus on the sports, on the facts, and tell the press we're done with unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo.

Putting my finger on it

I think I have figured it out. Why yesterday's loss didn't bother me as much as I thought it should.

Over the last couple of months I have written a lot about the hypocrisy of the fans out there who bitch and moan about cheating when any individual would have a hard time finding a clean team out there. I have pointed out that, for the inquiring mind, and the fanatical historians of the game, that the Steelers of the 1970's were rumored to have pioneered steroids in the game (at least one offensive lineman from the last two Super Bowl squads of that era confirmed that he took steroids), that the Miami teams of the early 1970's were penalized for coach tampering, John Madden pretty much admitted that the Raiders he coached cheated and challenged, "what are you going to do about it?" From 1972 to 1982 those teams accounted for nine out of eleven possible Super Bowl appearances by the AFC, winning eight.

There are a number of other teams whose violations have faded over time - the Broncos who both filmed and were in violation of the salary cap - but all is talked about is the team's championship.

But those aren't the only things that have faded with time.

Time has put the Bills' four Super Bowl losses in different perspective. Once thought of by pundits and fans alike as being the biggest losers in football history for having lost those four consecutive championships, time has mellowed the perception, allowed for the appreciation of the difficulty inherent in what the Bills accomplished.

People talked about how, if the Pats lost, this Super Bowl would be the biggest upset in the history of the game. It may be, and that perception may remain for some time, as will the ghost of Spygate, but both will fade. Somewhere in my gut and in the back of my mind is the understanding that I might have just witnessed a season that might not repeat itself during my lifetime and that at some point it will be recognized for the incredible ride that it was.

The fact they weren't able to put the exclamation point on the season will likely linger longer than the cheating scandal - which will have a longer life than previous scandals, not because it is tied to a multiple Super Bowl champion, but because we live in an information age where the fourth estate is about ratings and advertising rather than objective news. It's why stories like the "Run Away Bride" in Georgia lasted for over a month in the national news when as recently as 15 years ago that story would have been, at best, two paragraphs in news of the odd every place outside of the greater Atlanta area.

But all of that is only part of it.

I am bothered when the teams I root for either don't show up to play, or lose because of things outside their control (poor officiating, etc.). I honestly think the Patriots played as well as they could have. I think they gave the Giants everything they had left in their tank, which wasn't much.

The Giants, in spite of playing one game more just had more left.

I didn't feel that way in 1985 or in 1996. I think the Patriots could have played better in both of those games. I don't know that they could have won either, but I didn't feel like they played their best football when they most needed to.

I know when the smoke finally clears, and the filming is put to rest, I'm going to look on this season as both incredible and a little disappointing. I won't dwell on the loss - it will still be there - but I will look at a team that still broke the Dolphins record for consecutive wins in a single season (sure, it's Pyrrhic, but it's still an impressive feat), set a variety of offensive records that are just off the charts, and did these things amidst a firestorm of controversy.

Thanks for the ride. It was pretty damned incredible.

Congratulations

I want to send out a congratulations to the New York Giants and the team's fans.

A few quick observations -

Anyone else get the irony of a team named the Giants playing David and knocking off the Goliath that has been the Patriots for this decade?

Over the course of the week leading up to the game I had an ever worsening feeling about the game. I reasoned why the Patriots should win, why people should predict a New England victory, but there was a nagging feeling in the back of my head that kept telling be that the Patriots just didn't have enough gas left in the tank to seal the deal. I think I'm less disappointed by this loss than I would have been if I had felt strongly about the Pats winning.

Don't get me wrong - I don't mean to sound like I'm taking anything away from the Giants. They played the better game and they deserved the win...and, to some extent, I am happy for Michael Strahan. I'm glad he got himself a Super Bowl ring before the end of his career. It's just that I would have preferred it not be at the hands of the Patriots. C'est la vie.

In spite of the loss, I enjoyed the game. I'm sure there are many out there that were bored by the game, but I like the defense-heavy games.

As I said elsewhere - if somebody had told me that the Pats D would hold the Giants to 17 points, I would have been positive the Pats would win. But the Giants front four on defense won the battles in the trenches with the Pats O-line. Something that happened with less frequency in the December meeting.

Even when the line didn't get there, Tom Brady failed to make plays, often over- or under-throwing his receivers. Eli Manning, on the other hand, made plays, often times while under pressure.

It was a great defensive game. Congratulations New York, enjoy the championship.

As for the Patriots...

It was the third time this season that the team was facing the Giants in a final game of a part of the NFL season - pre, regular, and post. It's exceedingly difficult to defeat a team three times in the same season - even if one of those times is in the pre-season.

Looking forward...

The Patriots are going to feel like they have unfinished business, and they will reload again. But the question is how.

Unless Donte Stallworth renegotiates his contract, he won't be back. I expect Randy Moss will re-sign with the team. Troy Brown I would say is a toss-up, at best, to return.

I would not be surprised to see both Tedy Bruschi and Junior Seau return, but I suspect they will bring in another linebacker for the rotation. As well as the linebackers played yesterday, there were times they appeared old and worn down at the end of the season.

The righteous and the wicked

As fans we are typically raised in our own particular denomination - Sox, Yankees, Colts, Penguins. Sometimes it's because of family, sometimes it's regional.

We've been raised to believe that there is something pure and good about sports.

The character of Terrence Mann in Field of Dreams concludes his keynote speech with, "And they'll watch the game and it'll be as if they dipped themselves in magic waters. The memories will be so thick they'll have to brush them away from their faces. People will come Ray. The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game: it's a part of our past, Ray. It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again. Oh... people will come Ray. People will most definitely come."

The fact is, people that play sports - and I'm not talking about those of us that play pick-up games of basketball on Saturdays, or in softball leagues after work - no, those that were competitive enough to be in that handful of players to ever make it to the majors, the coaches, the trainers, these people are some of the most competitive people in the world.

They look for edges, often going out of the bounds allowed by their sport, sometimes venturing into the outright illegal. And this is not limited to American athletes or coaches.

Look at Marion Jones, Tim Montgomery, Barry Bonds, Bjarne Riss, Roger Clemens, and Lyle Alzado to name a few. By all reports, these people are the ones who looked for shortcuts, looked for the edge that going outside the bounds of the rules of their sport, and sometimes the laws of their country.

If you doubt how competitive these people are, consider that Pete Rose ended the career of a catcher in an All-Star game. A game that didn't even count.

The history of professional sports is a history of cheating and controversy, as much as we would like to convince ourselves otherwise, as often as we try to convince ourselves otherwise, the fact remains that there is nothing clean about pro sports.

The Patriots have Spygate, the Chicago White Sox will always have the Black Sox Scandal, the Packers and Lions will always each have a highly regarded player (historically speaking) in the 1960's who were both suspended for a season for gambling on the game. The Reds will always have Pete Rose, and Rose will always carry the stigma of betting on baseball.

Questions will always dog Floyd Landis and Lance Armstrong. There will always be questions regarding the timing of Martina Hingis and the timing of her retirement in regards to an alleged positive test for cocaine, violating the WTA's drug policy.

In spite of mounds of incontrivertible evidence that pro sports is rife with cheating, we, as fans, get indignant over the fact that an opposing team cheated to win. We yell cheater(!) and point fingers, and try to claim the team that is the subject of our affections in a given sport is on some sort of moral high ground.

As a Red Sox fan, I always felt, from a public standpoint, that the Sox and the fan base lost the moral high ground on the steroid issue back in the mid 1990's when they added Jose Canseco to the roster. I felt it then, I feel it now.

Owners hold cities hostage, favorite players bail in favor of better money elsewhere, officials get nailed in gambling scandals. But we keep coming back, and we defend our teams with the rabid, one-mindedness of a pitbull. We are Crusaders for the Patriots, Giants, or Eagles.

Sometimes we are misguided in our attacks, sometimes because of misrepresentation by the press, sometimes because we are going to impress our preconceived notions upon a team we don't like, and have no desire for the making a judgment based on the facts. It is a religion, like all religions, based on faith and emotion.

And like religion, the government has no place in the games, unless the governing bodies of the games turn their heads and look the other way when federal and state laws are violated. For those of you who do, think about it this way - hypothetically, you own a contracting firm and are a member of your local chamber of commerce. You cut corners by setting studs two inches farther apart in your building than you are supposed to. Arlen Specter calls for an investigation into your business practices by Congress and compares your violation of building standards to illegal practices by the CIA. Anyone else sense the incongruity?

As for the Anti-trust Exemption that people claim give him the right. Let them remove it. See how football suffers. If football looses the exemption, then the draft goes away. The exemption is what allows the NFL to tell a player coming out of college that the Bills, or the Raiders, or the Panthers own a player's rights for a year. That goes away and the teams with the best profit margins - the Patriots, the Redskins, the Cowboys, and large market teams like the Giants are the only ones that can get the best talent coming out of college. Football becomes baseball.

Teams like Buffalo, Green Bay, Tampa Bay, Tennessee...they might as well kiss their collective futures goodbye.

As for Specter...this is a joke. His impartiality is questionable, at best, considering he's an Eagles fan and is pretty much tailoring his inquiry to the Eagle's Super Bowl loss to the Patriots, and his second largest contributor during the last election was Comcast, one of the companies locked in the legal dispute with the NFL over the NFL Network. He comes off more as a fan pissed about his team losing a championship than as an official trying to protect the integrity of the game.

And as a fan, he's wielding the cudgel that he he has - the Anti-trust Exemption - in a matter that was already handled in-house, as it should have been.

As for his claim that the NFL might need the evidence it destroyed at a different time, this isn't a court of law, nothing illegal was done. What need is there to hang on to evidence that had already leaked to the press to the embarrassment of the NFL? Specter is mistaking an in-house issue for something of the severity of baseball's steroid scandal, which did indeed violate federal law.

And people wonder why the Republican Party took a beating in the last election.

As fans, sometimes we need to temper our emotions. Sometimes we need to do a little footwork on our own, and not completely trust the media - they are, after all, in the business of selling papers and advertising. It behooves them to present stories in a way that will allow them the largest possible circulation. It's why the headlines were, "Pat's caught stealing signals," rather than, "Pat's caught putting together game film from forbidden location."

Presenting the story as taping from a location not allowed, but that stealing signals is...just not a sexy story.

It's why we'll never know what really happened with Terrell Owens just before the beginning of the season, but "attempted suicide" sells papers.

Sure, in our judicial system everyone is accorded the benefit of the doubt - innocent until proven guilty. But that's not the way the court of public opinion works.

For the detractors of the Patriots, this season will always be tainted - in spite of the fact that they were probably the most scrutinized team in the league this year, that the film was confiscated before the end of the first quarter of the first game and the NFL said that there was no way that the film could have been used, that nothing else untoward happened during the season. Those same people will always doubt the validity the 2001 win over the Rams due to unsubstantiated rumors that the Patriots taped the Rams' walk-through the day before. It's the nature of being a fan who doesn't like a team, or who resents a team.

But it remains the same for other teams that this happened to - the Yankees of the late 1990's will, in many people's heads, always have the taint of a large number of steroid users on that club. For some, it will always be remembered that the 1972 Dolphins were without a first round draft pick due to a penalty levied for tampering with a coach (Shula) who was still under contract with another team.

The instances of cheating and impropriety in sports are legion. And anyone who thinks they root for a team that's innocent, well they're just kidding themselves.

Time to play the game

We have less than 48 hours of hype left. The remaining (roughly) two days will see the analysis slowly turn to party and celebration. The concerts begin tomorrow, and will continue almost until kick-off. The analysis will, as well - but it will be interrupted by the music and celebration. The holiday is beginning earlier and earlier.

While it will continue, by now we have heard every expert, coach, talking head, former player, and shaman from Maine to Mexico dissect Sunday's game more than a frog in a tenth grade biology class, it's time to play the game. We have heard the special interest stories - Eli and his brother, the war hero in the Giants locker room, Mercury Morris and the 1972 Dolphins, the rehash of Tedy Bruschi's stroke, Bruschi Brothers constructions, Junior's return to the big game after 181 games, Mercury Morris and the 1972 Dolphins, tight end Kevin Boss' trip from Division II to Super Bowl, Tom Brady's childhood mentor's taking ill, and, of course, Mercury Morris and the 1972 Dolphins.

We have heard every little injury from Tom Brady's ankle, Plaxico Burress' and Rich Seubert's knees, and Jabar Gaffney's shoulder, to Scott Pioli's administrative assistant's paper cut.

We have been inundated with all kinds of speculation and useless information.

I'm a little surprised that I don't know what's Bruschi's favorite restaurant, or Bill Belichick's hat size, or who Tom Coughlin's favorite singer is.

We have experienced the return of Spygate courtesy of Arlen Specter - who appears, when Goodell's written correspondence to his inquiry is read, to be a bitter Eagle's fan rattling his saber because he has a little power.

We have heard Buress' predictions, the Giants' trash talk, the Patriots' muted responses.

The bottom line - none of the above matters in two days. The trash talk, the injuries, Specter, the stroke, the 181 game gap, definitely not Mercury Morris and the '72 Dolphins, and not Spygate.

All that matters is what happens on a field in Arizona between two teams when approximately 100 men strap on the helmets and pads and smack the sweet bejeezus out of each other for 60-minutes on Sunday night.

At the end of that one team will be left standing.

All I have to say about it...in the immortal words of Al Bundy, "let's rock."

The Golden Age of Boston Sports

For any fan of Boston area sports under the age of 45, the 'Oughts is the Golden Age.

I have touched on the numbers that we're now seeing from Boston teams before. The Patriots are the impetus for this sports Renaissance in the Hub of the Universe, and reversal of fortune for Eastern New England's professional sports franchises.

It is, for me - an admitted football fan first, and baseball fan second - vindication for a team that, while I was growing up, was sometimes called a distant fourth in popularity in a three sport market.

Before I get into where I'm going with this, I want to note that all this tends to be cyclical. The Red Sox were the most dominant team in baseball 100 years ago, winning five championships from the beginning of 1900 through to 1918. In the 1960's, the Celtics were the most dominant professional sports franchise ever, winning ten of eleven championships starting in the late 1950's and running through 1970.

For New Englanders/Bostonians of a certain generation that 1960's to late 1970's stretch was, at one time the Golden Age. The Celtics dominated until the two Stanley Cups by the Bruins, then there were the 1967 Red Sox. By the time the Sox returned to the World Series in 1975, the other franchises around Boston were falling on hard times. Larry Bird wasn't yet drafted, and the Bruins struggled to advance in the playoffs.

The last time there was an up-tick in the cycle for Boston was in the mid to late 1980's when the Celtics won championships, and the Red Sox, Bruins, and Patriots all made it to the finals in their respective sports. The Sox lost the World Series to the Mets, the Patriots the Super Bowl to the Bears, and the Bruins the Stanley Cup to Edmonton. That was, for my generation, the Golden Age.

Until now.

In 2001, Bill Belichick and Scott Pioli assembled a team of virtual no-names and won the Super Bowl on the arm of a sixth round, second string quarterback, the legs of a retread running back released from a division rival, the leg of an unknown kicker out of NFL Europe, as well as a punishing defense with the only big names on the team - Ty Law and Lawyer Milloy. The others were mostly mid- to low-end free agents, often career back-ups or part-timers or end of the road guys, who weren't tendered offers by their previous teams like Mike Vrabel, Brian Cox, and Otis Smith.

Theo Epstein, just three years later, built a Red Sox team based on the same principles that Pioli and Belichick used - don't worry about the superstars. Get the gritty guys that love the game. Epstein even went as far as trading away fan favorite, and team superstar Nomar Garciaparra at the trading deadline for Orlando Cabrera - a solid, get your uniform dirty sort of guy who, at the time, was not thought of as highly as Garciaparra. The Sox have won two World Series since.

The Patriots have parlayed their success in the big game into the ability to recruit the big names, the superstars like Corey Dillon and Randy Moss, and get them to check their egos at the door.

Now we're watching a Celtics team with a big three that the pundits wondered how they would mesh when the players were put together. The three - Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and Kevin Garnett - were known as shooters, and the big question was how they would operate - one ball, three shooters, someone was bound to be unhappy. Like with the recent Patriots and Red Sox teams, Allen, Pierce and Garnett all saw an opportunity to be great...if they left the ego at the door.

On the ice, the Bruins are fifth in the Eastern Conference and playing solid hockey. They will make the playoffs, barring a catastrophic collapse.

Yeah.

It's good to be a Boston fan right now. Savor it. These things don't last.

Dodging a bullet

Johan Santana is heading to the Mets.

This says to me that the Red Sox and Yankees were both out of the bidding at the end.

The Mets gave up four prospects to get Santana, none of which are considered by scouts to be major league ready right now.

Both the Yanks and Sox were offering at least one quality, major league ready prospect along with a package of minor leaguers, all believed to be no more than a year away from the majors. And we've seen, in the Mets, what their top prospects have done in recent years (Lastings Milledge).

If the prospects the Mets sent to the Twins don't pan out, this is going to go down in Minnesota sports history with the following - the Vikings trade to get Herschel Walker, which, in essence, was the impetus for the three-Super Bowl Cowboys; the Twins getting nothing for David Ortiz; the Kevin Garnett trade to the Celtics. Those are just the ones I can think of.

The reason it will be comparable? Because they could have had any one of the following sure-fire major leaguers - Phil Hughes, Jacoby Ellsbury, Coco Crisp, or John Lester. Crisp doesn't have the upside the others have, but it would have given them a center-fielder and lead-off hitter...and they would definitely have had something to show for it.

The Twins played chicken and lost.

More random thoughts...

My father's name is Lawrence Smith. He was born in 1939.

Imagine my surprise when I heard on Sports Center this morning that Larry Smith had died at the age of 68. I had that brief moment of shock until I remembered that my father shared his name with the former football coach of USC and Arizona....well that, and why on Earth would my father's death be announced on ESPN? (I will admit to being a bit of an idiot, but in my defense, it was 6:30 in the morning and my infant daughter had me up at midnight and four AM).

Still, it was weird.

Ten straight...

I forgot to address this in my last piece.

A lot has been made of the Giants winning ten straight on the road as one of the reasons that they would win (once again, I would like to reiterate that I think the Giants have a legitimate shot, and I wouldn't be surprised if they won, I just don't think it will happen). The ten road wins in a road are impressive, and 10-1 in their last 11.

Not even taking into account that the Patriots are at 18-0 (which seems to have become the "they have to lose sometime" tool to use against them in predictions), the last time the Patriots lost a road game was in Indianapolis in last year's playoffs. And including last season's playoffs, the Patriots are 11-1 in their last 12 road games.

If we want to consider them the home team, as per the Super Bowl designation, the Patriots are on a home winning streak of 14 straight since their regular season loss to the Jets in week 10 of last year.

Speculation...

Blogging, sports columnists, and all the other talking heads do an enormous amount of speculation. Really, it's what we do. We look at records, statistics, and quotes from news conferences and we speculate on what it all means.

One of the bits I have heard come up, not a popular one, but I have heard it, is that Bill Belichick will walk away if the Patriots win. The argument being, after 19-0, what's left to accomplish?

My guess...no head coach in the history of the game has five Super Bowl rings, and only one has five NFL championships - Vince Lombardi. If Belichick can win this year, giving him four SB titles in seven years, he still has an opportunity for as many as three more this decade with '08, '09, '10 seasons (unlikely, but possible).

These are the things that have never been done that he could potentially accomplish - three Super Bowls in a row, six in a decade, and the most dominant football franchise of all time in a single decade. Will he? I don't know. They have a hard road with teams like the Colts, and San Diego as perennial contenders.

Some people never learn...

23-17. That's what Plaxico Burress says that the final score will be, in favor of the Giants. It's one thing for the owner to talk like that. But Burress? Sure he's had some decent games against the Patriots in his career, but consider the following -

In 2001 Burress' Steelers team already had made reservations for New Orleans. The Steelers didn't just lose that game. They were pushed around and bullied in their own stadium.

Two seasons later in Super Bowl XXXVIII the Panthers vaunted defensive line was supposed to manhandle the Patriots offensive line made up of back-ups and street-free agents. The line didn't give up a single sack.

The following year Eagles wide-out Freddie Mitchell famously boasted he had something for Rodney Harrison. Mitchell had one catch in the Eagle's Super Bowl loss for 11 yards. Harrison, on the other hand, caught two of Donovan McNabb's passes.

This season alone, the following have mouthed off before Patriot games with the subsequent results -

LaDainian Tomlinson (...ya ain't cheatin', ya ain't tryin') - 18 rushes for 43 yards in a Chargers loss.

Terrell Owens (Getcha popcorn ready) - Six receptions for 66 yards and one touchdown in the Cowboys loss. Three catches for 31 yards and no scores in the second half.

Washington Redskins defense (they haven't seen a defense like ours yet) - 'Skins lost 52-7. 'Nuff said.

Anthony Smith (People keep asking me if we're ready for the Patriots. They should be asking if they're ready for us) - That was only the beginning of Smith's statement guaranteeing a Steelers win over the Patriots. Brady constantly picked on Smith, burning him on at least two long touchdown passes. Smith was later benched.

Igor Olshansky (New England is more worried about us...they know what's up) - Olshansky was largely quiet during the playoff game against New England, registering five tackles, two assists, and half a sack. The Chargers never led in a game that was seldom as close as it seemed, and the defensive line didn't get the pressure they needed.

And now Plax appears to be lobbying to join that list.

I'm not saying that Burress shouldn't believe that the Giants can't win - there would be no point in playing the game. However, he could have handled that...in a more diplomatic manner...say, maybe answering the question with, "yeah, I think we can win. We have our work cut out for us with that team over there. But yeah, we have a chance."

As for the people who like to say, "if they need that to get up for the game..." Let's face it. They don't need it, that doesn't mean they aren't going to use it.

Just a thought.

By the way...

Currently I am the Maryland Columnist for the Mid-Atlantic Brewing News. It's a good gig if you can get it. As such, I have started a little endeavor with some of my cohorts here. If you're a fan of micro-brews, or inexpensive wine, or like the occasional mixed drink...hell, if you're an alcoholic, then stop by.

Buying the hype, selling the fertilizer

Just some random thoughts as we go into Super Bowl week...

There has been a lot of talk about the non-story of Tom Brady's ankle. If Brady was carted off the field after his ankle was rolled on in the game against the Chargers eight days ago, I would be concerned. But today I see it as a non-story.

In 2001 Brady was lifted from the AFC Championship Game against the Steelers when his ankle was twisted under him in the first half. Drew Bledsoe came in and marched the Patriots down the field for a score and captained the Patriots to victory, creating a quarterback controversy going into the game against the Rams a week later. A WEEK LATER.

This year Brady has had two weeks to recover and never had to be removed from the Chargers game. As a matter of fact, he was 7 for 7 passing after the sprain. He was 15 of 26 before.

Thought two -

The New York Giants are the chic pick among a lot of the pundits. So much so that I think I have heard more of the national talking heads pick the Giants than the Patriots. The reasoning - they have the defense and the running game to cause the Patriots problems...or...The Patriots have to lose sometime...or...The bye helps the Giants to plan for the Patriots...or...Look who the Giants had to beat to get there. The Patriots had an easier road...or...Because of what they did against the Patriots in the final regular season game, the Giants know they can win.

I don't know that I would lay money on the Patriots, given the spread. However, I think the Patriots are the likely winners in this contest.

Yes, the Giants have a great running game, but so did Dallas, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, and Pittsburgh. And yes, the Giants D has been great, particularly in the post-season. However, the last time I checked, neither Bays - Green and Tampa - have the offensive weapons of the Patriots, and neither does Dallas (and for anyone who wants to try to argue that, tell me - who would you really rather have at QB? Romo or Brady?).

Then there's this -

In his time with the Patriots, Belichick is 24-4 when facing the same QB for the second time in a season (I might be off on that number, but I think it's right). Coughlin is 1-3 following a bye with the Giants. Belichick is 13-7 (including with the Browns) after a bye, but has won his last ten straight.

As for who the Patriots beat - the Jaguars, according to the talking heads, were supposed to be the strong defensive team with the powerful running game that was supposed to topple the Patriots from their perch. Now they're a "who did the Patriots really beat" team.

Everyone out of New England is talking about how the Colts would have given the Patriots a better game, but they struggled mightily against the banged up Chargers team that eventually faced the Pats.

As for the last point. The bottom line is that the Giants couldn't hold the Patriots off late in the game, and then Eli turned the ball over at the least opportune of times while trying to mount a late drive.

I'm not saying that the Giants don't have a chance. I just don't see solid logic behind the reasoning that I'm hearing from those predicting a New York win. I do think it's gonna be a helluva game.

Smoke and mirrors

Rings don't mean what they once did.

It used to be that multiple Super Bowl rings translated into...stronger consideration for Canton. Dynasty translated into a stronger case for enshrinement.

This is how football's dynasties stack up with players that made the Hall - The Cowboys of the 1970's have close to a ten-spot's worth of HoFers, and the 1990's team had at least three (when Emmitt Smith gets inducted). The Green Bay teams of the 1960's had close to a dozen. The Dolphins, who went to three Super Bowls in the early 1970's have seven. The Steelers of the 1970's have ten, not including ownership. The 49ers of the 1980's through early 1990's have four, not including Jerry Rice, who's not yet eligible.

Even the four Super Bowl loss Bills have Jim Kelly, James Lofton, Thurman Thomas, coach Marv Levy, and Bruce Smith is considered to be a lock when he becomes eligible next year, giving those Bills five.

Why do I bring this up, one might ask.

With the Patriots on course to possibly win their fourth Super Bowl in seven years (only the Steeers of the 1970's have won as many championships in as short a period with four in six years), the talking heads will, invariably, talk about the great teams of all time. With that discussion comes the talk of Hall of Famers.

Taking off the fan hat, most pundits seem to agree that the only sure-fire candidates from the previous Super Bowl winning teams currently on the Patriots are Bill Belichick and Tom Brady (Randy Moss is pretty likely to get in). In past seasons, the only other name that came up with regularity was Adam Vinatieri.

Vinatieri was a great kicker - arguably the most clutch kicker in the game during the run of three Super Bowls in four seasons. But he suffers from being a kicker trying to work his way into a Hall that annually has a log-jam of worthy candidates due to the rules that limit how many candidates can enter in a year - which includes places taken by owners, commissioners, and other contributors who weren't necessarily on the field. Those off the field contributors often bump deserving players. It's why only one kicker has ever made it in, and why Vinatieri will have trouble getting in.

As for Moss - first, this is possibly his only season with the team. Second, there are a lot of Hall voters that will hold his time in Oakland against him - and rightfully so. He dogged it for two seasons, and that's not what great players...difference makers, do. He will get in, but he won't get a free-pass to Canton.

All of this begs a question, though. What's the standard? Is it putting up great stats? Is it coming up big in the big games?

Consider - Peyton Manning is considered a sure-fire Hall-of-Famer. He should be. He has been one of the most prolific offensive forces throughout his career. Sure, he's had Hall-of-Fame caliber receivers, running backs, and linemen around him, but he has generally been less than stellar in the post-season, riding to his only Super Bowl win on the back of a resurgent defense last year.

Richard Seymour has been mentioned in the past, but his injury issues in recent seasons has seriously hurt his chances.

The Patriots have a variety of players who have come up big in the post-season, or in order to seal the team's trip to the post-season, but do not have Hall-type numbers.

At different times throughout their Super Bowl runs, the Patriots have ridden the likes of Kevin Faulk, Tedy Bruschi, Troy Brown, and Ty Law.

Law has a legitimate shot, but could be hurt by the tail end of his career. Law was one of the best corners in the game for a stretch, but was it a long enough stretch?

Bruschi habitually has come up big at the right time, but will be hurt by the fact that few have ever considered him one of the top five inside/middle linebackers of this era - generally getting ranked behind Ray Lewis, Zach Thomas, Derrick Brooks, Brian Urlacher, and when they were at their peak in Pittsburgh, Levon Kirkland, and even Chad Brown. This is in spite of what we have seen he really means to that defense - anybody else remember what it was like when he was out because of the stroke?

Troy Brown regularly made the third-and-long conversion that kept the chains moving, recovered a blocked kick against the Steelers in a playoff game, returning it to mid-field where he lateraled the ball when about to be tackled - translating into seven more points in a close game.

Now Kevin Faulk is filling the Troy Brown roll. Coming up big when a big play is needed.

None of these players, however, are likely to make the Hall. Leaving the only long-timers as the Brady-Belichick tandem - making one think that the Patriots have won all their Super Bowls with smoke and mirrors.

On a lighter note - from my father, the Iggles fan (one that I have heard before, but am always amused by) -

Three quarterbacks, Peyton Manning, Brett Farve, and Tom Brady, go to heaven to visit God and watch the Celtics play a game. God decides who will sit next to him by asking the boys a question...

God asks Peyton Manning first: "What do you believe?" Peyton thinks long and hard, looks God in the eye, and says, "I believe in hard work, and in staying true to family and friends. I believe in giving. I was lucky, but I always tried to do right by my fans." God can't help but see the essential goodness of Manning, and offers him a seat to his left.

Then God turns to Brett Farve and says, "What do you believe?" Brett says, "I believe passion, discipline, courage and honor are the fundamentals of life. I, too, have been lucky, but win or lose, I've always tried to be a true sportsman, both on and off the playing fields." God is greatly moved by Brett's sincere eloquence, and he offers him a seat to his right.

Finally, God turns to Tom Brady: "And you, Tom, what do you believe?" Tom replies, "I believe you're in my seat."

Between a rock and a hard case

Football players sacrifice their bodies for a lot of reasons. For many it's the large salaries, for some it's the love of the game, and for others it's the glory that a championship brings. They sacrifice their health and well being. They put a lot on the line.

They are professional sports' tough guys (face it, hockey players are tougher, but that's only because they're certifiably insane - it' not the same thing as just being tough).

Players garner reputations for toughness and durability. Brett Favre has played in every game since he got his first start...in a leather helmet. At least it feels like that's when he got his first start. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning also have started every game since starting - in spite of being banged up. Drew Bledsoe won consecutive games with a pin holding together the tip of his index finger on his throwing hand (and he wasn't leading those comebacks by handing the ball off). He even tried to come back into the now famous Jets game after shearing an artery in his chest (sure, he wasn't in his right mind, but you get the point).

Hall-of-Fame Rams defensive end Jack Youngblood famously played in the NFC Championship game and subsequently Super Bowl XIV with a stress fracture in his left leg. Lawrence Taylor and Emmitt Smith were both major factors in playoff games for their respective teams while each played with a separated shoulder. Terrell Davis famously suffers from debilitating migraines, and had one during Super Bowl XXXII. According to Davis it was so bad that he had trouble seeing. It didn't stop him from lining up, if for nothing else, as a decoy in Denver's backfield.

Recently Antonio Gates and Philip Rivers, both listed as questionable and game-time decisions for the Chargers' loss to the Patriots in this past weekend's AFC Championship game, toughed out the game in the hopes of landing that Super Bowl berth.

Why? Because opportunities to get to the Super Bowl are rare. Many players never get there. Half the teams in the NFL have never won a Super Bowl. Eleven teams account for 35 of the 41 titles. Approximately 18 percent of the league's teams haven't even played in the game.

Dan Marino lost in the big game in his rookie year, and then never got back...in 17 seasons. Linebacker Clay Matthews played for 19 seasons and never made it. Neither did quarterback Vinny Testaverde in his 21 seasons.

As Ron Jaworski is fond of noting - winning in the NFL is hard.

It's why so many of these players play hurt. They believe they give their team the best chance of winning.

Which brings us to LaDainian Tomlinson.

Tomlinson is catching a lot of flack for being on the sideline while his team put up field goal after field goal in Sunday's match-up with the Patriots. He might be as injured as he is now claiming, however, that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve to be called out by the former players that are now part of the entertainment machine that is sports journalism (and when your toughness is questioned by Deion Sanders...well that's just sad).

Tomlinson is defending himself, saying he was no better than 50 percent and that he felt that the healthy duo of Michael Turner and Darren Sproles gave the Chargers the best chance to win. He can defend himself in this manner all he wants - but he dug himself this hole. HE told the team doctors in the days leading up to the game that he was well enough to be taken off of the injury report. HE told the press that he was 90 percent in the days leading up to the game. So, either HE lied to the doctors, press, and San Diego fans in the days leading up to the game, or HE's lying now in order to deflect criticism.

Either way, he deserves to be questioned...deserves to take the hit, so to speak - whether for his toughness, or for unrealistically raising the expectations of the San Diego fans and teammates.

One thing's for sure - it appears that it would have taken being in a wheelchair or on crutches to keep his injured teammates off the field. And, hell, Rivers had [arthroscopic] knee surgery surgery six days before the game.

Tomlinson best get used to being criticized for this one, because it's not going to stop.

Tiki the difference maker

Last season we heard from Tiki Barber - often - on how bad a coach Tom Coughlin is. It continued through this year in a book he published, accusing Coughlin as being the reason for Barber going into an early retirement.

Barber was considered by many (outside the locker room) to be the leader of the Giants. We heard and read a lot about the Giants being "Tiki's team."

Barber criticized the head coach, and his quarterback.

To a man, the Giants that have publicly responded, blasted Barber.

Under Barber, Eli Manning showed little to no signs of progression from his rookie year until...well, until Barber left. This is largely the same team that Barber left.

Yet now they click.

Interesting that not a single former Giant teammate of Barber's has come to his defense, but they have all rallied around their coach and their quarterback. Even Terrell Owens, a noted locker room cancer, still had (public) supporters in the San Francisco and Philadelphia locker rooms after burning those bridges with nuclear devices. Barber has had none. Zero. Zip. Not one former teammate has come out and said anything even vaguely like, "look, Tiki's a good guy and a friend. He's not here this season, so he doesn't know how Eli, or Coach are this season," or even, "based on his experience here the last couple of seasons, Tiki's not saying anything that's not true, but it's a different atmosphere this year."

But none of that happened.

Instead, the biggest difference that Barber has made for the Giants this season was to take his divisive, malcontent attitude out of the mix.

Interestingly enough, the team got even better when their trash-talking, injury-prone tight-end ended his season on the injury list. The two biggest trash talkers (sure, Barber didn't talk trash so much about the opponents as he did his own team) on the team either leave or have absence enforced on them and the Giants get better and are headed to the Super Bowl. Coincidence? I think not.

Dante's Inferno

The New England Patriots are Super Bowl bound.

On an evening when the Patriots were facing the league's seventh ranked rushing attack, being led by uber-back-up Michael Turner, it was the Patriots running game that ran roughshod. The Chargers rushed for 104 yards.

The much maligned Laurence Maroney rushed for 122, and the team for 149. In the second half, after Tom Brady struggled, the Pats turned to a short passing game featuring Kevin Faulk and their running game. Over 100 of Maroney's yards came in the second half.

In essence, they put the game in the hands of Dante Scarnecchia's boys. The 38-year offensive line coach, and assistant head coach is the team's longest tenured coach, and has cobbled together lines that got the team to the Super Bowl with street free-agents, and no-names like Russ Hochstein and Brandon Gorin.

His offensive line took over the game, mauling the vaunted Chargers defensive line. Stephen Neal and Logan Mankins absolutely manhandled defenders at the point of attack, the Seans were effectively eliminated by Matt Light and Nick Kazcur while Dan Koppen neutralized the big body in the middle.

This game was won in the trenches.

And Maroney didn't waste the gift, punishing any defender daring to make a tackle - once knocking one five yards down field and out of bounds.

Welcome to Dante's Inferno. It won't get any easier for whoever the opponent is in Arizona.

Oh...and by the way....

Eat it Mercury.

Much ado...and at least one answer

There's a lot being made of the Giants 9 game road winning streak going into Green Bay, and not to take anything away from the Giants who have been road warriors this season, but the Packers haven't been slouches at home, going into this game with an 8-1 record at Lambeau this season.

How about this statistic for home field advantage - the Patriots have won 13 straight at the Razor, last losing to the Jets over 14 months ago. Also, the team is undefeated in Championship games at Foxborough, and undefeated in post-season games held in Massachusetts in sub-freezing temperatures since Bill Belichick took over the team.

The hosting teams have four Super Bowl rings in five appearances and are 6-2 in this round of the playoffs, the second loss was by Tom Brady in last season's match-up in Indianapolis. Brady is 3-0 in championship games held in Foxborough.

As for the answer...

Teresa posed a question to me - has the AFC East hosted the best and worst teams in the NFL before this season? Yes. The first time the East held the dubious distinction was in 1984 when the Dolphins and a rookie Dan Marino led the league with a 14-2 record while the Buffalo Bills brought up the rear with a 2-14 record.

All of this has inspired the final note...a note on futility -

The Arizona Cardinals, the longest active franchise in professional football - actually predating the league currently known NFL - hasn't won a championship since 1947. The team was founded in 1899 under the name the Morgan Athletic Club on the South Side of Chicago. It later became the Racine (Street) Cardinals, then the Chicago Cardinals, St. Louis Cardinals, Phoenix Cardinals, and finally the Arizona Cardinals.

In 108 years this team has won two championships, an average of one every 54 years. Their last title was 20 years before the Super Bowl.

This team did Chicagoans a favor by moving from the Windy City.

The teams that haven't even made it to the Super Bowl include the Browns, Cardinals, Lions, Saints, Texans and Jaguars. As far as opportunities - All but the Texans and Jaguars were in existence at the beginning of the Super Bowl Era (technically the Saints for the second). The Texans and the Jags have been around for, combined, less than 20 Super Bowls (the Jags first year was 1995, the Texans 2002).

Then there are those who have made it to the big game only to lose - Eagles, Bills, Vikings, Oilers/Titans, Bengals, Chargers, Falcons, Panthers, and Seahawks. Unless the Chargers can get past the Patriots tomorrow, it means that the winner of this Super Bowl will come from the pool of 16 winners of the 41 previous Super Bowls.

Of the three active teams in the playoffs that previously won, all are multiple winners - the Giants with two (1986, 1990), the Packers with three (1967, 1968, 1996), and the Patriots with three (2001, 2003, 2004). Other multiple winners include with five each - the Steelers, 49ers, and Cowboys; with three are the Raiders and Redskins; and with two are the Dolphins, Colts, and Broncos.

Of the 41 Super Bowls already played, 11 teams account for 35 of the titles - if you're wondering why the math is off, I think it's because of the whole affair between the Cleveland and Baltimore with the Browns' move and subsequent name change, however, I might just be missing a team in there.

Either way, it's likely that a franchise that has already won a Super Bowl will be getting fitted for another set of rings come February.

AFC East...the pioneer conference

It is the history of the conference.

They are pioneers in the league. They are history setters.

The Jets were the first AFC team to beat an NFC team in the Super Bowl (they were also the first team to be named the Titans).

The Dolphins were the first team to have an undefeated season and win a championship in the NFL (twice the Bears went undefeated, but both times lost in the championship game).

The Bills remain the only team in the history of the NFL to go to four consecutive Super Bowls. The only other team to come close were the Dolphins with three consecutive Bowls in the early 1970's - the first team to go to three of the big games.

And now the Patriots are the first team in the NFL to go undefeated through a 16-0 season (not even taking into account all the other records the team set).

Yep...the history setters.

Welcome to the AFC East.

Bullies and stupidity

Sometimes the governing bodies of sporting entities can be stupid, and like to enforce rules either improperly (rules in which there is no room for "interpretation," yet they still subject the rule to their own "interpretation"), or they enforce rules that don't actually exist, but one is close, so that's what they enforce.

Sure, I'm being cryptic here, but you really need to click on the links and read the stories. These are about two female athletes being screwed by the system. One being screwed due to her religion - she's Muslim, the other because she wants to play baseball, and the powers that be in Florida are telling her she can't because softball is available to her (note that her school has said that it has no problem with her playing baseball).

The issue for the girl in Florida -

Providence School is keeping the seventh-grader off the field by pointing to the state regulation, which says girls could participate on a boys interscholastic athletic team in a sport if the school does not sponsor a girls interscholastic athletic team in that sport, but girls may not participate on a boys interscholastic athletic team in a sport if the school sponsors a girls interscholastic athletic team in that sport.

The school is saying that the issue is with the Florida High School Athletic Association, about whom the school's headmaster said the following, "Since we have a softball team, the state has indicated to us that she will not be permitted to play baseball."

Of course the issue for the FHSAA is that baseball and softball are not the same sport. Different rules, different infield sizes, different names. This goes to court, the FHSAA loses. Period. And they lose because the officials at the state can't read their own rules.

Closer to home for me, in Washington DC, I don't even know where to start. It's just stupid, and local officials don't have a leg to stand on if this goes to court. Read these stories and let me know what you think - there's a lot of stupidity out there.

Question and Answer: Charger stupidity

Why is Igor always the sidekick? He's got Abby Normal's brain.

Igor Olshansky (and Shawn Merriman) looks like looks to be joining the inimitabel ranks of players like former Eagle Freddie Mitchell, or current Steeler Anthony Smith. Olshansky asked reporters after the Chargers win over the Colts, "the Patriots? Who are they?" Then went on to talk trash about the Pats.

Other than run his mouth, what has Olshansky done in the league? An average of 33 tackles per year and 1.75 sacks and no forced turnovers for his first three seasons.

Like Freddie Mitchell, who ran his mouth before the Super Bowl between the Patriots and Eagles, and then did nothing, Olshansky is a first day draft pick - Mitchell was first round, Olshansky second.

Maybe it's because Olshansky is coming off a career year in his fourth year with highs in tackles (47, 33 solo), sacks (3.5), and forced turnovers for the first time in his career (one interception, 3 forced fumbles). The strongest recommendation for Olshansky is the Int and three forced fumbles. Other than that, not exactly a distinguished season.

And certainly not a distinguished career.

To put Olshansky's career into perspective - Olshansky has been listed as a starter on the Chargers Web site since his rookie year. Jarvis Green, a second day pick (4th round) has been coming off the bench for the Patriots since his. Through his first three seasons, in limited action, Green averaged 20 tackles, 2.75 sacks, and 1 pass defended per year, to go with two forced fumbles.

For my money, that means that the Chargers defensive end, one that wouldn't be able to beat out Green to play back-up on the Patriots, is talking trash.

Smooth move.

Visceral reactions

During the season I got into a few arguments on some message boards and at some blogs - particularly with Colts fans, defending the Patriots from accusations of classlessness. Honestly, I found the accusations kind of funny coming from fans of a team whose quarterback threw his offensive line under the bus after the playoff loss to the Steelers, and an owner who recently extorted over $400 million from the Indiana tax payers for a new stadium (sorry Theresa, I have to address this).

People bitch about how obnoxious we (Pats fans) are.

The truth?

We are obnoxious. But so are the fans of every other professional team out there.

The logos of our opponents create within us visceral reactions. Sometimes those reactions are uncalled for, we as fans go too far.

The Colts fans booing a 14-year old girl, winner of her division in the NFL's punt, pass, and kick competition was, indeed, a shameful moment, and Colts fans should be ashamed. It was classless and inappropriate. This was no $4 million per season wide out, or star quarterback (and yes, Phillip Rivers was just as inappropriate and classless to the Colts fans).

That said - it's not the worst I have heard. The stories of how Colts fans visiting Baltimore were treated during last season's playoffs - taking out over two decades worth of frustration over Jim Irsay's dad moving the Colts in the dead of night to Indianapolis on the fans from Indiana. It was a visceral reaction to people wearing the logo of a team that screwed their fan base. It was also inappropriate, classless and uncalled for.

When I lived in the greater Philadelphia area I wouldn't even go to Eagles games because of the horror stories I heard and read about the way the Philly fans treated small children in opposing jerseys.

The horror stories about the fans at Foxborough before the Krafts took over are legion.

There are no innocent fan bases.

But where children are involved, can we at least show a modicum of decorum?

As for Bob Kraft being classless?

The man bought the team in order to keep it in New England. He privately funded the stadium. He will have the girl who was booed in Indy last weekend on the field for the coin toss in New England, providing the girl, her parents, and two brothers tickets to the game on the team's dime. He has cultivated football in Israel, converting a life-long Giants fan. He has become the game's ambassador in China. Best of all - he was a fan first.

He was one of us.

Not to take away anything from Jeff Lurie, or Arthur Blank. But some people come to it as investors. Lurie is a Massachusetts native. Geogia Frontiere always seemed like a johnny-come-lately. Both have always tried to do right by their teams. But Bob Kraft was a season ticket holder going back almost to the great Flush (Pats fans know what I'm talking about).

And Kraft has always seemed like he tried to put the fans first. I can't say that about most owners.

So, before anyone goes off on the classlessness of the Pats and the team's fans, think about the last time your fan-base booed a 14-year old girl, or cursed out a family from out of town whose come to your home stadium, or your owner extorted money from the state's taxpayers in order to build a stadium.

We're all guilty. Get over it.