It's been a rough year for the few BC basketball fans that bother to show up to the Conte Forum each game. The Eagles were 7-16 coming into last night's game, at the bottom of the ACC standings. But those who did show up were treated with an upset win over Florida State, who were sharing the top of the standings with North Carolina.
To say this has been a rebuilding year might be overly polite to the Eagles. BC is loaded with freshmen, and this season is essentially a lengthy pre-season for the 2012-13 campaign. You can tell that coach Steve Donahue is trying to teach his team how to play the game properly, so once their skills are honed, they can contend to return to the NCAA tournament.
Which means this season's games look more like practices and scrimmages. Except when BC hits 10 of its 22 three-pointers and Florida State turns the ball over 14 times.
I think the Eagles will be respectable in a few years. This wasn't a glimpse of things to come as much as it was a statistical aberration. But it was quite fun to be there and watch it. And the 4,000 or so who showed up got more than their money's worth, and got their loyalty rewarded.
I'm not the biggest basketball fan in the world. But right now I'll grab hold of any positive Boston sports story that I can and hang on for dear life.
Paul Pierce scored 15 points last night in the Celtics' 94-84 win over the lowly Charlotte Bobcats. By doing so, he surpasses Larry Bird as the Celtics' 2nd highest scorer ever. Pierce has now scored 21,797 points in Boston. John Havlicek is the team's highest scorer with 26,395.
Not only was this game a reminder of Paul Pierce's importance to one of the most storied franchises in American sports, but it's made extra special by the current nature of the NBA. Players change teams with the drop of a hat. Free agency, the salary cap, and players wanting to play with their buddies means that stars change jerseys more than Oregon's football team.
Pierce is sort of a throwback. Drafted by the Celtics, he's been a constant presence since 1998. He was a Celtic when the Celtics were a joke. He was the key part of their Eastern Conference playoff run in 2002. He was still there when C's fans were praying for a lottery pick in 2007. He was at the podium a few months later when Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett were acquired. And of course he won a ring in 2008. As the Celtics' fortunes have risen and fallen, Pierce has been a constant presence.
That's exceptional in modern sports.
Pierce is also 15 games short of his 1,000th in a Celtics uniform.
I didn't see the Bruins game on Sunday. On Saturday, they played with some bad habits. They turned the puck over, the defense didn't play actively in the 3rd, and all the forwards seem to be slumping. The goalies are cold too.
So while I didn't see the 4-1 win against the Capitals, I think the Bruins have improved some of their bad habits. Certainly Tim Thomas' 35 saves on 36 shots is a good sign. And the forwards have once again decided to get involved on offense. Lucic, Marchand, Seguin, and Peverley scored the goals on Sunday.
The B's are in a mid-season funk. Winning 4-1 is a good way to start getting out of it.
Two plays can sum up this game. One was Mario Manningham's toe-dragging sideline catch in the 4th. The other was Wes Welker's drop, also in the 4th. Manningham was covered well yet brought his toes down, maintained control of the ball, and in one play brought his team from its own 12 yard line to just 15 yards shy of field goal range. Manningham reached his maximum potential in that moment. He made the play.
Welker's drop came with the Pats up 2, with 4:00 on the clock. Had he held on, it would have been 1st & 10 on the Giants' 22 yard line. The Patriots could have drained at least another minute off the clock and would have almost surely scored at least a field goal. And if they'd scored a touchdown, the game would be over. Welker had all 10 fingers on that ball. And it popped out. He didn't make the play.
The Giants made more plays than the Patriots. It's not rocket science, it's fairly simple.
There were plenty of times in this game that the Patriots were just a play or two away from claiming victory. They didn't make the plays. The Giants did.
It's not effort, it's execution. No sane person can question Wes Welker's effort. But when his number came up, he just didn't make the play. Mario Manningham did.
After the Pats scored to start the second half, victory was within reach. They never grabbed it.
17-9 Pats and the defense gives up a field goal. If the Pats respond with a touchdown, they're up 21-12 and in the driver's seat. Instead they went three and out.
The defense gives up another field goal. 17-15 game, Pats get the ball back, move it a bit, then on a 1st down Brady evades pressure, then throws deep to Gronkowski. He underthrows a bit, Gronk can't outmuscle the linebacker covering him and it's an interception. What was Brady thinking? Throwing a jump ball on 1st down? That was a cocky decision.
The Giants eat about 5 minutes of clock and pin the Patriots back on their own 8. That drive ended the play after Welker's drop. Punt, Manningham, a few more plays, touchdown, history.
Victory was out there. The Patriots didn't reach out and take it. The Giants did.
Looking ahead, there's little reason to despair. There is a great deal of talent on this team. There's room to improve, but there's a strong foundation to build on.
I think you'll see significant defensive retooling. As much as I blame the offense's lack of execution for this loss, the Giants did mount an 88 yard game-winning TD drive. It'd be nice to have a better chance to prevent that. A team can't be so dependent on half of its roster to win all its games and right now the Patriots are dependent on the offense to make every single play in order to win.
That needs to change. Safeties that know what they're doing. Cornerbacks that can cover one-on-one without being embarrassed. A consistent pass-rush. Maybe an OLB that can rush the passer.
Here's a weird, almost frightening thought: the Bruins are the clutchest team in Boston sports.
Vegas favors the Patriots by 2.5 to 3. Which seems a little strange. The Pats were 13-3, and were the AFC's #1 seed. The Giants went 9-7, and were the NFC's 4th seed, even though they had the 6th best record. Of course, the Giants beat the Patriots 24-20 at Gillette Stadium in early November.
I don't want to play the underdog card too much here. As I said, Vegas is favoring the Patriots. Which means people are putting their money behind the Patriots. But the fact that questions like "Would you rather have Eli or Brady?" are being asked at all seems a little weird to me.
The Giants appear to match up well against the Patriots. They have a strong 4 man pass rush that can pressure Brady but also leave 7 men in coverage. On the other side of the ball, the Patriots have the 31st passing defense, allowing 293.9 yards per game in the air. The Giants have a good QB, with a bevy of weapons for him to throw to. Victor Cruz, Hakeem Nicks, Mario Manningham, and tight-end Jake Ballard who caught a TD against the Pats in November.
As bad as the Patriots' pass-defense has been, people don't seem to be noticing how bad the Giants are at defending against the pass. The Giants are 29th in yards allowed. Opposing QBs have an 86.1 rating against the Giants. What is the QB rating for Patriots' opponents? 86.1. Isn't that funny.
And since when has Eli Manning become an elite QB? I heard one pundit say that Eli's success is due to his not making mistakes anymore. Really? Doesn't make mistakes anymore? He threw 16 picks this year, 7th most in the NFL. He threw 25 picks last year.
He's been excellent in the postseason so far, with 8 TDs, only 1 INT, and a 103.1 rating. But his whole career has been defined by inconsistency. And he was hardly dazzling back in November against the Pats.
The Patriots lost that game because Brady wasn't as good as he should have been. They lost because they made mistakes like missing a 27 yard field goal. They lost because they turned the ball over 4 times. Brady threw 2 interceptions and fumbled. Edelman muffed a punt. The Giants scored 10 points off turnovers.
Eli Manning is the best QB that the Patriots will face in these playoffs. But he doesn't scare me. The November game was actually one of the better games played by the Pats' defense. People are talking about Ahmad Bradshaw not playing in that game and how much it helps the Giants that he's back. But the Giants were 32nd in the NFL in rushing for a reason. Bradshaw rushed for 3.9 per carry this year, and never once eclipsed 60 yards in a game.
And to be blunt, rushing the ball against the Patriots is doing their defense a huge favor.
This game comes down to one person. And his name is Tom Brady. How he throws, and how he's protected, and how he executes will determine if the Patriots win or lose. I know I've been saying it all year, but it is all about Brady, Brady, Brady.
The Patriots beat the Ravens without a fully effective Tom Brady. They won't be able to pull the same rabbit out of the hat twice. Brady needs to have a good game for the Patriots to win. And if he has a great game, the Patriots will win. No matter what Eli does against the Pats' defense.
One thing that unnerves me is that for the past few years Brady's tried to force the play in big games. He's thrown into double coverage with no margin for error. For example: that deep ball in the Ravens game intended for Slater. No need to try to be that perfect in one throw. He needs to realize that it's better to throw a couple good passes instead of forcing yourself to throw one absolutely perfect one. Because if a good pass is off, it's incomplete. If the attempted perfect pass is off, it's an interception.
I think Brady and the offense will execute on Sunday. At the very least, they won't turn the ball over as easily as they did in November.
Gronkowski's health will play a huge part in the Patriots' offense. He caught 8 passes in that November game. He's Brady's #1 target in the Red Zone, and he's a good receiving option to have if Brady is getting hurried. When Brady needs to press the panic button, he can throw to Gronkowski's general direction and Gronk will haul it in. If he's healthy.
Let's not forget about Wes Welker, though. Welker would have been Super Bowl MVP in 2008 had the Patriots been able to hang on. He caught 11 passes in that game. He caught 9 passes for 136 yards in November. He also had a 13 yard run. He will have a big game on Sunday.
The Giants are vulnerable against the run. They allowed 121.3 yards per game on the ground, 19th in the NFL. In November, BenJarvus Green-Ellis ran well at the start of the game, 52 yards on 12 carries. Then for some reason Ridley and Woodhead got more of the carries. They didn't do as well (combined 10 carries for 36 yards). This might have been due to Ellis' health, or might have simply been a play-calling mistake.
Look for Ellis to get the ball with regularity on Sunday. Not only do the Giants give up chunks of rushing yards, but a strong run can also slow down and wear out a pass-rush. Then of course comes play-action. Ellis can also become an outlet receiver, chipping a lineman then sitting in the middle of the field or the flat for a safe pass. J.R. Redmond style.
Brady will not look at Ochocinco unless he's clearly on the good side of a mismatch.
In the November game, Brady targeted Ochocinco 5 times. This was before we all accepted the fact that Ochocinco is not a significant part of the offense. It was Game #8. In the first 8 games of the season, Brady targeted Ochocinco 21 times. In the 10 games since then, Brady's targeted him 11 times. So from 2.6 targets per game down to 1.1.
Why is that a good thing? Because it demonstrates that the Patriots have adjusted their offense. Ochocinco was thrown to at key moments in that November game. And it didn't go well. Now, he won't be. Brady will be looking for someone else.
One thing this offense has done remarkably well this season is adjust, adapt, and evolve. Adjust to coverages, adjust to pass pass rushes, adjust to Ochocinco's inability to adjust, and so on. The Patriots didn't adjust back in 2007, they simply kept hammering away at the same thing the same way.
They've adjusted since November. The Pats have won 10 straight since that game. The Giants are 6-5 since that game. Yet somehow they've been billed as the red hot team. And give credit to them for their playoff wins. But they are prone to inconsistency.
I think the Patriots' offensive line will man-up and slow down the Giants enough for Brady to find open receivers. We can talk about schemes and strategies all we want, but football usually comes down to one group of guys outplaying another group of guys. It'll be up to the Pats' offensive linemen to protect Brady and make holes for Ellis.
I think BJGE will also slow down the pass rush and set-up a few 2nd & 2 situations. Eli will put up a few TDs, but he'll throw a pick or two. The Giants will score, and will have one or two painfully unstoppable drives. But they won't keep up with the Pats.
It's official. The Bruins are in their mid-season doldrums.
For the first time in the history of the Whalers/Hurricanes, they have swept their season series with the Boston Bruins. And that's unfortunate for the Bruins because the Canes are 14-25-9 against the rest of the NHL and 4-0 against the Bruins.
The B's have allowed 3+ goals in five straight games. They're not doing the little things. And their success is based on their ability to excel at the little things.
They're not playing physical. And I don't mean big hits and fights. I mean going into the corner for a puck and physically earning it from your opponent.
And when they do win battles, there's no puck support. Carolina's 2nd goal was scored after Marchand won a battle in the offensive zone. But it was a Hurricane that got to the loose puck and triggered a breakaway. Ference fumbling around for the puck didn't help much either.
The Bruins are in a 4-4-1 stretch and it's because of basic fundamentals. Turning the puck over. Winning battles. Puck support. Clearing the puck out of the zone. A team with less talent might be 2-7 in this stretch. But by the same token, the Bruins aren't talented enough to just show up and win. They need to execute the fundamentals, do the little things, and physically outmatch their opponents.
They haven't been doing that since that Vancouver game.
There was a story the other day about a Super Bowl being played in London. I think a bit more likely possibility is a Super Bowl being played in New England. And why not?
The reason the Super Bowl has always been played in the South or in domes is the weather. But who cares? Football is the sport that's supposed to be played rain or shine, warm or cold. Wouldn't a well fought, snowy Super Bowl go down as one of the most memorable anyway?
The NFL doesn't seem to care much about climatic complications anymore. They've staged games in cold weather cities like Detroit and now Indianapolis. And in 2 years they'll be playing outdoors in New Jersey. Foxborough is only a few degrees colder.
The NFL obviously divides the money that the Super Bowl takes in among the 32 teams. But what about all the money that gets poured into the economies of cities that host the big game. Why should Tampa Bay, Dallas, Glendale, and Miami rotate the Super Bowl between them and rake in all the cash?
So much money would be made. Hotels would be full. Restaurants and bars would be full from Norwood to Norton. People would go into Boston and take tours of Fenway Park and Faneuil Hall. They'd go to a BC basketball game or a BU hockey game. They'd eat our lobsters and drink our Sam Adams.
It happens every year. Thousands of fans and media descend on a city and spend money. So why not have it here in New England?
As a sports fan, it'd be thrilling to host such an event. And as a Massachusican, it'd be great for the economy.
How Super Bowl XLVI plays out will have a tremendous impact on the legacies of four men: Eli Manning, Tom Coughlin, Tom Brady, and Bill Belichick.
If the Giants win, and Manning does well, perhaps even wins another Super Bowl MVP, he'll be regarded as the superior Manning. At least he should be.
While Peyton has always been highly praised, and has been putting up gaudy regular season stats for years, the game of football is about playing your best in the big game. It's about performing in the clutch, capitalizing on the big moment, making that one play. More so than any other sport because other sports have best of 7 series. In the NFL, it's win or lose, live or die, all in one game on one night.
If Eli wins, he's the better big game QB. He'd have 2 rings. One more than Peyton. He'd have an 8-3 playoff record. Peyton is 9-10.
Eli would also have a much better record against the Patriots, a team that most NFL teams have measured themselves against for the last decade. Eli would have 2 playoff wins against New England. Peyton is 1-2. Eli would have a career record of 3-1 against the Patriots. Peyton, when facing the Patriots with both Belichick and Brady, is 4-8 against New England.
So if Eli does well and helps propel the Giants to a Super Bowl win, his legacy will surpass his older brother's.
What about Tom Coughlin's legacy compared to his former boss, Bill Parcells?
If the Giants win, then Coughlin matches the Tuna in the ring category with 2. Parcells won 303 games as a head coach, Coughlin has 256 wins. Parcells' playoff record isn't staggeringly amazing. He's led teams to 3 Super Bowls, won 2 of them, and is 11-8 in the postseason. Coughlin has been two 2 Super Bowls, won 1 of them, and is 8-7 in the playoffs.
I don't see much separation there. If I told you those numbers were some mystery coach, you might say that Coughlin is just a step behind Coach X. But Parcells' name carries the weight of his reputation as a winner. So it seems like Coughlin is further behind than he really is.
Parcells gets praised for producing lots of coaching talent. Like Coughlin, and Belichick. But that also means he's had high quality assistants helping him win. Was Parcells a great teacher? Or did he have genius students? Probably both.
I'm not saying that if the Giants win on Sunday, then Coughlin is better than Parcells. But he's at least in the conversation. Looking at just their bodies of work, there wouldn't be much separating the two.
And as for former Giants assistant Bill Belichick, a win on Sunday would put even more distance between he and Parcells. Belichick would be 96 games over .500 as Patriots head coach. Think about that. Parcells had a .570 winning percentage, and .611 with the Giants. Belichick has a .643 winning percentage, .724 with the Patriots.
Belichick has 272 career wins (31 behind Parcells, 22 behind if you include playoff wins), a 21-6 playoff record, 5 Super Bowl appearances, 3 titles. A win on Sunday would be icing on the already impressive cake of Belichick's legacy.
The same goes for Brady. If the Pats lose then both Brady and Belichick will still be considered among the best at their particular jobs. If they win, they'll be among the best ever in all of sports at anything, not just their specific positions in their specific sports. They're both already great. Winning Sunday could add an -est to the end of that word.
What would make ring #4 so impressive is that this team is completely and utterly different from the previous 3 Super Bowl champions. The Patriots won those with patient passing and a playmaking defense. Now they're trying to win with a playmaking offense and a defense that tests the fans' patience.
For a coach and quarterback to grow and adjust so dramatically over a 10 year span is impressive. Brady has become the poster boy for the passing frenzy that is the NFL. I think Belichick saw Brady's potential being underutilized in 2006, as he was forced to work with Reche Caldwell and Doug Gabriel.
That's when Belichick went out and acquired Randy Moss, Wes Welker, and Donte Stallworth.
And for 18 games, the formula worked. It just hasn't won Game #19. Yet. But if the Patriots win on Sunday, Belichick and Brady will have 4 rings, coaching and playing for 2 very different kinds of teams. Brady would have won as a "game manager" and as a "flashy" QB. Belichick would have won as an old-school defensive mastermind, and as an offensive "guru."
It's like a great actor who can do comedy and drama, who can play the hero in one movie, then the villain in another.
That kind of success puts you in the upper upper stratosphere of sports greatness.
Those are the legacies on the line Sunday. A good quarterback and a very good coach who can emerge from some shadows. And a great quarterback and great coach who can start casting even bigger shadows of their own.
