Patriots-Packers drinking game: Thirsty Thursday pre-season opener edition

We're finally going to see football players on a football field instead of appearing in a court room. And even though the first pre-season game doesn't mean much, it's still football. And it will still be the Super Bowl Champions taking the field.

So here's a drinking game that will help you pass out before all the starters are taken out of the game. And if you actually play this game, you'll be on to alcohol poison, the emergency room, and then the morgue. Here it is...

Anytime a commentator says...
"Deflate" = take 1 drink of beer
"Gate" = 1 drink
"Wells" = 1 drink
"Goodell" = 1 drink
"PSI" = 1 drink
"Pressure" = 1 drink
"Court" = 1 drink
"Appeal" = 1 drink
"Mortensen tweet" = drink 11 of 12 beers in a 12 pack
"Suspension" = drink a mixed drink (a.k.a. a suspension, for you science nerds out there)
"Garoppolo" = 1 drink
"Pre-season" = 1 drink
"Incomplete" = 1 drink


Anytime this happens...
Touchback = 1 drink
Kick return = drink until the return is over
Turnover = finish your beer
The Patriots go no huddle = 1 drink per snap
A Patriots player you don't know touches the ball = 1 drink
An announcer is unsure of a player's name = 1 shot of liquor
Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady are compared = drink until it stops
You think you saw Vince Wilfork, but you didn't = finish your beer, drink a shot, eat a turkey leg
The announcers stop talking about what's happening in the game = 1 drink


Anytime this is on screen...
A shot of a football or footballs = 1 shot of liquor
A ballboy = 1 drink
Bill Belichick = 1 drink
Tom Brady = drink for 12 seconds
The number 12 (including graphics) = 1 drink
Bob Kraft = 1 drink
Kraft talking to someone = drink the entire time he's talking
The words "Free Brady" = 1 drink
Any sign or shirt with a hashtag on it = 1 drink
The Lombardi Trophy = 1 drink per trophy
A ring = 1 drink per ring


Bonus Obscure Player Scavenger Hunt!!!
Drink every time these players are spotted on the field. And the first to announce they've spotted them also has the authority to dispense drink commands to others until the next player is spotted. And just like discipline in the NFL, appealing these drink commands is futile. So here are the players to watch for...

Offense:
Jonathan Krause, #16 - WR
Shaq Mason, #69 - OL
Tyler Gaffney, #36 - RB

Defense:
Geneo Grissom, #48 - listed at DL but played some TE in college
Dax Swanson, #25 - DB
Xzavier Dickson (not a typo), #42 - LB

So there you go! Get lubed up responsibly folks!

BBS Awards: Tom Brady wins Athlete of the Year

The Boston Blood Sox Awards (or Bloodies) are awarded for great success and/or pitiful failure in the 2014-15 sports year.

Without a doubt Tom Brady was the best athlete in all of sports in 2014.

He's better than Aaron Rodgers. He beat the Seahawks. Against the best defense in the NFL, he had the best and most clutch 4th quarter of any quarterback in Super Bowl history.

And not only did he lead his team to the top of the NFL in 2014, he's currently in a fight against the NFL and just might beat the League itself.

So much better than Aaron Rodgers.

The Patriots broke a rule that shouldn't be a rule

Rules are rules. And if the Patriots altered the air pressure of the ball after the refs inspected them, then they deserve to be disciplined for circumventing a rule.

But why is this rule even a rule? Why can't teams inflate or deflate the ball as much as they want? Why limit them to between 12.5 and 13.5 lbs/PSI? If Tom Brady prefers to throw a football at 11 lbs/PSI, and Aaron Rodgers wants to throw a ball with 14.5, why is there a rule preventing them from doing so?

What unfair edge would be gained? Teams use their own balls. How could one team gain an advantage over the other if both teams are using the footballs they prefer?

What's the worse that could happen? Passing offense might be more efficient and prolific? It wouldn't be the first time a rule change favored the offensive side of the ball.

The NFL allows players to select which cleats they'll use. They let quarterbacks and receivers decide to wear gloves or not. They let everyone decide the types of facemasks they want to wear. Why is this piece of equipment different?

Furthermore, the NFL allows the outside of balls to be rubbed up, broken in, scuffed, and so on. If changing the outside of the ball is fair game, why is the inside of the ball so rigidly restricted?

Again, I'm not saying that rule breaking should be excused. But I think this particular rule should be examined. It's a stupid rule.

Photo Credit: Maddie McGarvey, The New York Times

Peyton Manning's Diary: ouch my leg, ouch my heart

Dear Diary,
It happened again. Me and my team were played off again (Coach Tony taught me to call it that instead of that E-word that kind of rhymes with laminated). It's the ninth time that the NFL hasn't let me play more than one playoff game. I don't think that's fair.

It's not my fault either. Everyone says so. From Coach Fox (haha, sorry, every time I think of Coach Fox, I think of that "What Does the Fox Say" song, ding ding ding da ding da ding da ding), to Mr. Elway, to Coach Tony. I don't think it's my fault. My leg hurts. Trainer Steve and Doctor Martin say my quad is torn. I asked them which of my quads, my first, my second, my third, or my fourth. They told me I had 2. That doesn't make sense. I learned in school that quad means 4. So not only do I have a torn quad, I only have half the quads I should have.

I hurt it a few weeks ago. But we wanted to keep it a secret. When I saw Aaron Rodgers getting carted around like a cripple a few weeks ago, I called Mr. Elway and asked him why we didn't do that. He sighed, and said something about Aaron Rodgers and the Packers being drama queens and attention horses. I didn't get it. Our mascot is a horse, Green Bay's isn't. Their mascot is... well, I don't know what. And drama queens are actresses who play queens in movies and plays. Mr. Elway says lots of things I don't understand.

When I played with Coach Tony and the Colts, whenever I got hurt, we'd go out and get extra pizza after our normal post-game pizza party. It would be just me and Coach Tony. And if I hurt my leg, Jeff Saturday would carry me to the pizza place. The Broncos promised in my contract to do the same thing. But Mr. Elway and Coach Fox (lol, ding ding ding...) said that we should keep it a secret. "Chuck E. Cheese won't tell anyone," I told them. But they didn't want anybody to know I was hurt.

I decided to keep my hurt leg a secret from myself. So when we decided what plays to try, I chose plays we'd run if my leg was healthy. That way I wouldn't know I was hurt. And it would stay a secret.

Something was wrong though. I'd throw long passes to Emmanuel, and miss him. I couldn't figure out why, since I was still keeping my leg a secret from myself. So I threw long passes to Wes, to the two Tommies, to Emmanuel. If I had told my secret to myself, I would have been able to figure out why I wasn't able to throw to my teammates. Since I didn't, I wasn't.

Secrets can be bad. But you should always keep a secret. I kept the secret, even from myself. So I did the right thing, and that's why it wasn't my fault that we don't get to play anymore. Coach Tony always said that losing right is always better than winning wrong.

I asked Coach Tony the other day about all the secrets that mean Coach Belichick keeps. I asked if that makes Coach Belichick a good person. Coach Tony said not to worry, and that I would understand when I grow up.

I'm looking forward to playing football when it's warmer again. Summer football and football in fall is the best, because even if you lose, you get to play next week. I only wish I didn't have to go to cold places like Foxborough (this "fox" doesn't make me laugh) or loud places like Kansas City, where the people running the scoreboard make the people in the stands make noise.

I hate noise.

Next year should be fun with Coach Fox again. I think we will have a fun group of guys who will...

Oh my gosh, Diary! I was just watching a tape of people on ESPN talking about how great I am, and the ESPN people just said that Coach Fox is leaving!!!!

I don't know what to do. I need to call Coach Tony. Sorry, Diary. I hate to write and run, but this is just too much. I need to do something. What if they hire a mean coach. What if he's like mean Mr. Belichick?

Oh no, oh no, oh no!!!!!!

Hugs and kisses always, Diary. I'll miss you.

Your pal always,
Peyton

Patriots not so super in possible Super Bowl preview

I didn't expect the Patriots to win this game. On the road against a very good and very unfamiliar opponent. Winning on the road has been tough for nearly the entire NFL this season. The Pats are now 3-3 on the road. The mighty Packers are 3-3, so are the Cardinals, the Eagles, and the Broncos. Only 2 of the 8 division leading teams, the Bengals (4-2) and the Colts (3-2), have winning road records.

Give credit to the Packers for playing a great game, and making the big plays. That touchdown before halftime was huge, that sack of Brady in the 4th was huge. The Packers made game-winning plays like those, the Patriots didn't. They almost did. That 4th and 3 conversion was a big play. Gronkowski nearly made a near impossible touchdown catch that might have won the game.

This game doesn't make me think less of the Patriots, or their chances to make a deep playoff run. They played like crap, dug themselves a hole, and were still a play or two away from winning anyway.

I do have two big criticisms of how the team played this game. They were woefully underprepared to deal with Aaron Rodgers rolling out of the pocket. It took the defense too long to make adjustments to this. My second criticism is that despite how clear it was that Brady wasn't going to have enough time to wait for plays to develop, long-developing plays were still called.

Brady didn't have a bad game. He didn't have a great game. His time to throw was limited. Yet the offense still tried, repeatedly and with no success, for big plays down the field. I blame McDaniels and Brady for this, and Belichick too. Short and mid-level throws to Edelman, Gronk, Wright, and Lafell were working. The long pass attempts were wasted downs.

I have mixed feelings about how the defense did in this game. They held Aaron Rodgers and the Packers to 26 points. Green Bay came into the game averaging 43.8 points per home game, so allowing 26 is good. At the same time, the Pats allowed 478 yards. Green Bay was 10 for 17 on 3rd downs. And if not for a drop, the Packers would have scored 33 points.

The Patriots defense didn't lose this game, but they didn't do much to win it.

The offense lost this game. The scoreless 1st and 3rd quarters. Only 32 yards in the 1st quarter, 42 in the 3rd. This game was supposed to be a shootout, and for long stretches the Pats' offense was firing blanks.

Of all three teams on the field, the team of officials had the worst game of all. One of them couldn't count, there was a play that the refs weren't set, Browner was called for the slightest violations, but Revis wasn't flagged at all despite some close coverage, a blatant OPI was missed, and I don't know why pass interference wasn't called on that pass to Gronk in the end zone. The definitions of rules changed throughout the game. I'm sure Ed Hochuli will lift his embarrassment away as he always does.

It's on to San Diego. The Chargers are a legit team, 5-1 at home (and yet another team that is 3-3 on the road). This loss to Green Bay emphasizes how important homefield advantage can be, so the Pats need to take care of business in their remaining 4 games to ensure that they don't play any post-season games on the road.

Packers should change their mind about retiring Brett Favre's number, then announce they'll retire it, then not retire it

The Green Bay Packers will retire #4 in honor of overrated dick-pic sender Brett Favre. The QB who helped Desmond Howard win a Super Bowl and was praised throughout his career as if he had won multiple rings, will be honored by the team that he jerked around for years.

Brett Favre has the distinction of throwing more bad passes than any other player in NFL history.

He's still a Hall of Famer, though. In part because the Football HOF inducts about 33 guys a year. So I get the number retiring. Number retiring is difficult in football for some positions. Quarterback isn't one of them. You have 19 digits to choose from and only 3 guys need them. And no other player would dare wear #4 in Green Bay again, unless they wanted to take a serious run at all of Favre's records. Only an even more gun-slingin', river-boat-gamblin' risk taker could dare hope to throw as many picks as Favre.

The Packers should use Favre's number retirement as a chance to exact some revenge. Announce that #4 will be retired. Then a few weeks prior to the ceremony announce that it won't be retired. Wait another year, with other numbers waiting in the wings to step up and be honored, then announce retirement again. Then announce that it won't be retired.

I just want to see Brett Favre throw a hissy fit. Because that's one throw of his that probably won't be intercepted.

And years from now, how hard is John Madden going to try to pass away on the 4th of the month, or in April, just so the #4 is on his tombstone?

It Doesn't Matter if Tom Brady Is a "Top-5 QB" or Not

An ESPN article has outraged the sports fans of Boston and New England. Sam Monson wrote a piece that argued that Tom Brady was no longer a "top-5 QB." I contend that as far as the Patriots are concerned, it doesn't matter if Brady is or isn't.

I'm not going to waste much time dwelling on Monson's assertions. If forced at gunpoint to give my top 5 NFL QBs, I'd include Brady. You'd have to force me at gunpoint because I think such discussions, and the side-arguments they spawn, are essentially meaningless. Being in the top 5 is such a relative, changeable thing. One year the 6th best QB could be great, another year the 3rd best could just be good. What does it matter?

It's all relative, yet the discussion is phrased in absolute terms. Instead of Brady "being in the top 5," pundits and some fans say Brady "is a top-5." That's an important difference in words. Being "in" a top 5 suggests that there's a list that QBs enter, fall out of, rise, and fall. The list is permanent, the player's spot on the list is not. Saying someone "is" a top 5 suggests that it's the player's greatness that is permanent, that he has some sort of top-fiveness quality to him, and somehow this attribute can only be possessed by 5 players at any given time. Once this greatness transfers to another player, the player drops out of the top 5.

So instead of acknowledging that these are rankings and are relative, they become attributes, described the same way that someone might describe height or weight. "He's a tall QB," "He's a big QB," "He's a top-5 QB." Saying a player "is a top-5 QB" sounds much more absolute than saying "he's in the top 5."

It pisses me off.

The biggest reason I hate these discussions is because football is so team-oriented that it doesn't matter if your QB is in the top 5 or not. Monson didn't include Russell Wilson in his top 5, but did include Philip Rivers. Who won the last Super Bowl? Was Joe Flacco "a top-5 QB" in 2012? Eli Manning wasn't a top 5 candidate until the Giants won in '07 (against Brady, who was a top 1 QB that season), then Eli was top 5 material, then he wasn't, then the Giants won again so he was, now he's not.

A "top-5 QB" is not a necessary ingredient to victory. Monson's top 5 (Rivers, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, and Ben Roethlisberger) have a total of 5 Super Bowl rings, none in the last 3 years. Non-top-5 QBs have won the last 3 Super Bowls, and wear a total of 7 rings.

Six of the last 11 Super Bowl winning QBs aren't among Monson's top 5. Eight of the last 14 Conference champions have been helmed by QBs outside his top 5. In the past three seasons, only 1 of Monson's top 5 has made the Super Bowl, and he lost.

Have I made my point?

Two conclusions can be drawn from this:

1. Monson's list isn't very good

2. More importantly, teams win Super Bowls, not top 5 quarterbacks

Tom Brady may or may not be in the top 5 in 2014. Time will tell. Ultimately, it doesn't mean that much in determining the fate of the 2014 Patriots. And here's why:

If the Patriots win the Super Bowl this season, it will be because they did not need Brady to be amazing.

I'll phrase the argument to address Monson: If the Patriots win the Super Bowl, it will be because they did not need Brady to be a top-5 QB.

In other words, for the Pats to win this year, they have to win as a team. Brady could be the best QB in the League, but if the Pats NEED him to be "a top-5 QB," they'll lose in the end, no matter how good Brady is. By the same token, if the Patriots DON'T need Brady to be "a top-5 QB" to be successful, then they have a strong chance at winning it all. And that's the only way they'll have a chance, if they don't need him to be amazing all the time.

Therefore, Brady's position in the rankings of quarterbacks is irrelevant. He's part of a team. An important part, but still just one part. If that team needs him to be spectacular, the team will fail. If the team doesn't need him to be spectacular, the team has a good chance to succeed.

Where Brady falls in QB rankings is meaningless for the Patriots, and should be meaningless for their fans. What matters is that the Patriots don't rely solely on him to win. Brady being in or out of the NFL's top 5 QBs has little bearing on the success or failure of the 2014 Patriots.

BEN AND AARON

I hate phrases like "changing of the guard" to talk about the evolving environments of a sport. Although Tom Brady and Peyton Manning took early exits from the postseason, and neither has won a title since George W. Bush was President, it's hard to eliminate them from the elite, uppermost echelon of quarterbacks in the NFL.

However, I think it's time we allow more names to populate that short list. It's no longer just Brady and Manning, then everyone else. I think it's Brady, Manning, Roethlisberger, and maybe even Rodgers.

What are the arguments against Roethlisberger's inclusion? His lack of eye-popping numbers? The help of a good running game and an excellent defense? But weren't those the precise arguments used against Tom Brady about 10 years ago? And since when has a QB won a Super Bowl by themselves? Ask John Elway and Terrell Davis, or Troy Aikman and Emmitt Smith. Better yet, ask Dan Marino and nobody else.

In this pass-happy NFL, Roethlisberger's numbers don't dazzle. Even if you extrapolated his 12 game performance into 16 games, he'd have thrown 23 TDs (tied for 13th with Garrard, Cutler, and Fitzpatrick), although with only 7 INTs. He would have been among League leaders for yards thrown, and his QB Rating was 5th at 97.0. So the numbers don't fizzle, either.

Those are good numbers. Even the TD number is good considering what sane coach would throw the ball on 3rd and goal at the 1 when Rashard Mendenhall is in the backfield? The whole "supporting cast" argument can go both ways.

Then there's his ability to win. He just does it. He makes plays when plays are needed. Apart from his experiences with the mid 2000s Patriots, he's beaten all comers in big games. He's won two Super Bowls, 3 AFC titles, and 10 playoff games. And he hasn't been a passenger along for the ride in those games, either.

So no matter what happens a week from Sunday, I think Roethlisberger has cemented a spot in that top tier of QB.

Then there's Rodgers. And unless he throws for 500 yards and 6 TDs, he might have to show us a bit more in years to come before being included in the Manning-Brady-Roethlisberger discussion. I don't get to see him often, being in the NFC. But I've yet to be thoroughly impressed with him as a player. So much so that even after a bad game, or a bad year, I'd be sure that he'd recover.

His numbers are gleaming, and his postseason performances have been admirable. A ring would go a long way to solidify himself at the top of the food chain. He certainly has the potential to reach such heights, but there needs to be more results over a slightly longer stretch of time.

So I'd say it's now a three horse race for the top spot among NFL QBs. They all have strengths, they all have slight weaknesses that can be used in an argument against them. Their biggest achievements have all come with assistance. And each of them plays the position in a different way, within different systems, that have all been successful.

But there's something about these three guys that transcends stats, and wins, and rings. There's an aura of strength around them. Opponents respect them, even fear them, in a way above and different from other QBs. I think that says a great deal more than passer ratings or playoff records.