Another AFC Championship game. Another Patriots season that has extended deep into January, and hopefully into February. Another chance to do your job and get lubed up while watching the Pats do their job. Here's a drinking game to play while watching the game Sunday evening:
Anytime a commentator says:
"AFC" = take 1 drink from a beer
"Championship" or "title" = 1 drink
Something about the weather = 1 drink
A stupid pun or play on words involving "Luck" = 1 shot of liquor
"Super Bowl" = 1 drink
"Foxborough" = 1 drink
"Offensive line" = 1 drink
"Brady" = 1 drink
"Jones" = 1 drink
A name that ends in "-ski" = 1 drink
"Jim" = 1 drink
"Phil" = 1 drink
"Job" = 1 drink
Anytime this happens:
Penalty = 1 drink
Penalty against Brandon Browner = 1 drink, 1 shot of liquor
Tom Brady points out the "mike" = 1 drink (if drinking Mike's Hard Lemonade (why?), you can command others to drink, this power lasts until the next play)
Brady says all or part of "Alpha Milk" = 1 drink (if drinking a White Russian, you can command others to drink throughout the game)
Brady says a word beginning with "F" = 1 drink
Brady says a word ending with "-uck" = 1 drink
The Pats go no huddle = 1 drink per snap
The Pats run, but it's not Jonas Gray = 1 drink
Rob Gronkowski spikes the ball = finish your drink, spike the container (bonus points for glass bottles)
Gronkowski spikes a Colt = drink an entire beer, last one to finish gets "thrown out of the club" (forced to stand outside for 5 minutes)
You're worried Gronk is hurt = alternate between drinking and praying, taking 1 drink from your beer between each word of prayer
Vince Wilfork makes a big play = 1 drink
Wilfork forces and/or recovers a turnover = 1 drink, 1 shot
Wilfork scores a TD = 1 drink, 1 shot, eat a turkey leg
The Pats block a kick/punt = finish your beer, take a shot
Touchback = 1 drink
Kick or punt return = drink during entire return
Matthew Slater makes a special teams tackle = 1 drink
Anytime this is on screen:
The number 12 (including the scoreboard and clock) = 1 drink
Highlights from previous Colts/Patriots AFC Championships = drink during entire highlight
Peyton Manning = drink for 18 seconds (if eating chicken parm, you can command others to drink until the next commercial break)
Aaron Rodgers = drink for 12 seconds, the last person to notice and start drinking must dramatically limp around for the remainder of the game
A trophy (including representations of trophies, such as graphics on the field, or handmade trophies held by fans) = 1 drink per trophy
Jonas Gray on the sideline = 1 drink
Ty Law = drink for 24 seconds
Tedy Bruschi = drink for 54 seconds
Troy Brown = drink for 80 seconds
Brady and/or Belichick's playoff record/stats = drink the entire time the graphic is on screen
Xavier Nixon (in person) = drink a 12-pack
A Boston College alumnus (Castonzo, Hasselbeck, Cherilus, or if you see one in the stands) = 1 drink
Bob Kraft = 1 drink
Kraft talking to someone = drink during the entire conversation
"Do Your Job" = 1 drink
So enjoy the game. Remember to get lubed up responsibly. And if you survive playing (which probably means you cheated), hopefully we'll be on to the Super Bowl.
Photo Credit:
John Wilcox
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Friday, January 16, 2015
Ray Lewis was right about NFL rules
Ray Lewis made a great point about the NFL and its over-reliance on rules. But his point was lost because he pissed Patriots fans off.
There are two topics that are guaranteed to piss off New England fans: SpyGate and the Tuck Rule. Start talking about these, even in passing, even as a joke, and Pats fans will flip out.
And I don't know why. I'm a Patriots fan, and I don't care about either topic. In 2001 the rules gave the Pats a break and bailed Brady out of a game-losing fumble. So what? The Raiders still allowed the game-tying and game-winning drives. The Patriots still beat the Steelers then the Rams. And yes, the Patriots filmed opposing signals from the sideline. So? If you're dumb enough to think doing so made any significant difference, then you should be mad at your own teams for either not noticing it and blowing the whistle on the Pats, or for not doing it themselves.
We in New England normally don't care what Ray Lewis says or thinks, it's just funny to hear him talk. Just imagine him dressed as Abraham Lincoln, with a beard and a stovepipe hat, giving the Gettysburg Address...
Four score, and SEVEN years ago, OUR fathers... Now we are engaged, in a GREAT Civil War... this nation UNDER GOD, shall have a new birth, of freedom. And that government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE, shall not perish, FROM THE EARTH!!!! WHO'S HOUSE IS THIS? OUR HOUSE!!! WHO'S HOUSE IS THIS? OUR HOUSE!!!
This is Robert E. Lee we're talking about, it's a chess game!
We all have a good laugh when Ray gets going.
But when he mentioned the Tuck Rule earlier this week, people in New England lost their minds.
In his recent remarks about how overly litigious the NFL has become, Lewis made the mistake of dwelling on the Tuck Rule. He argued that Tom Brady and the Patriots would be unknowns without the obscure rule. And he chose to do it the week after his former team was eliminated by the Pats. So his message was lost. Obscured, or obstructed, if you will.
And that's unfortunate because it was a good point. Rules were once meant to govern and control the game, now they define them. Rules used to focus on the clock and on formations and on player conduct and safety. People have been throwing and catching footballs long before rules existed to define when throws begin and end, when catches begin and end. But now the elemental parts of the game are being defined by rules. The basic parts that come together to make a game - throws, catches, tackles - are becoming complicated sequences of events. Dissecting a catch is like dissecting the Magic Bullet Theory in JFK. (fun fact: Arlen Specter, a nemesis of the NFL, came up with the Magic Bullet Theory when he was a junior prosecutor)
Throwing and catching are intuitive things. The NFL has turned them into complex, difficult to understand, even more difficult to explain concepts.
Football is something you're supposed to enjoy while relaxed, maybe even while having a few beers. You shouldn't need a philosopher and a lawyer in order to explain what a catch is to fans.
The Tuck Rule was a bad rule. It tried (and failed) to define what a throw is. But we all know what a throw is. We don't need rules to define it.
We don't need rules to define catches either. Rules for in and out of bounds are fine. Rules about clocks and formations are fine (although, not to John Harbaugh). Rules to define basic things that human beings have been doing for thousands of years? No, we don't need those.
So Ray Lewis was right.
There are two topics that are guaranteed to piss off New England fans: SpyGate and the Tuck Rule. Start talking about these, even in passing, even as a joke, and Pats fans will flip out.
And I don't know why. I'm a Patriots fan, and I don't care about either topic. In 2001 the rules gave the Pats a break and bailed Brady out of a game-losing fumble. So what? The Raiders still allowed the game-tying and game-winning drives. The Patriots still beat the Steelers then the Rams. And yes, the Patriots filmed opposing signals from the sideline. So? If you're dumb enough to think doing so made any significant difference, then you should be mad at your own teams for either not noticing it and blowing the whistle on the Pats, or for not doing it themselves.
We in New England normally don't care what Ray Lewis says or thinks, it's just funny to hear him talk. Just imagine him dressed as Abraham Lincoln, with a beard and a stovepipe hat, giving the Gettysburg Address...
Four score, and SEVEN years ago, OUR fathers... Now we are engaged, in a GREAT Civil War... this nation UNDER GOD, shall have a new birth, of freedom. And that government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE, shall not perish, FROM THE EARTH!!!! WHO'S HOUSE IS THIS? OUR HOUSE!!! WHO'S HOUSE IS THIS? OUR HOUSE!!!
This is Robert E. Lee we're talking about, it's a chess game!
We all have a good laugh when Ray gets going.
But when he mentioned the Tuck Rule earlier this week, people in New England lost their minds.
In his recent remarks about how overly litigious the NFL has become, Lewis made the mistake of dwelling on the Tuck Rule. He argued that Tom Brady and the Patriots would be unknowns without the obscure rule. And he chose to do it the week after his former team was eliminated by the Pats. So his message was lost. Obscured, or obstructed, if you will.
And that's unfortunate because it was a good point. Rules were once meant to govern and control the game, now they define them. Rules used to focus on the clock and on formations and on player conduct and safety. People have been throwing and catching footballs long before rules existed to define when throws begin and end, when catches begin and end. But now the elemental parts of the game are being defined by rules. The basic parts that come together to make a game - throws, catches, tackles - are becoming complicated sequences of events. Dissecting a catch is like dissecting the Magic Bullet Theory in JFK. (fun fact: Arlen Specter, a nemesis of the NFL, came up with the Magic Bullet Theory when he was a junior prosecutor)
Throwing and catching are intuitive things. The NFL has turned them into complex, difficult to understand, even more difficult to explain concepts.
Football is something you're supposed to enjoy while relaxed, maybe even while having a few beers. You shouldn't need a philosopher and a lawyer in order to explain what a catch is to fans.
The Tuck Rule was a bad rule. It tried (and failed) to define what a throw is. But we all know what a throw is. We don't need rules to define it.
We don't need rules to define catches either. Rules for in and out of bounds are fine. Rules about clocks and formations are fine (although, not to John Harbaugh). Rules to define basic things that human beings have been doing for thousands of years? No, we don't need those.
So Ray Lewis was right.
Bruins somehow winning without Tyler Seguin
The Bruins were struggling 10 days ago, and I explained why. My explanation had nothing to do with Tyler Seguin. I made four main points:
1. Tuukka Rask wasn't playing well
2. Milan Lucic wasn't playing well
3. The Bruins weren't dropping the gloves
4. The team couldn't make moves to improve because they were imprisoned in a cap jail they'd constructed themselves.
The Bruins have won 5 straight since I wrote that post. Why? Well, their winning, just like their losing, has had nothing to do with Tyler Seguin.
Tuukka Rask is playing better. The saves he made early in Thursday night's 3-0 win over the Rangers were the types of saves you'd expect a $7 million goalie to make. He's doing his job.
Lucic has awoken from his slumber. He's skating, he's getting involved in the play, and the result is production: 3 goals and 6 points these last 5 games.
The B's have 4 fighting majors in the 5 game winning streak. That doesn't include the two times Zdeno Chara threw punches against Paquette and Tampa Bay. The Bruins had 15 fights in their first 40 games. They have 4 fights in their last 5, which is more than twice the pace. More fights and more wins. Coincidence?
And finally, while the Bruins still find themselves in cap jail, with Peter Chiarelli facing the death penalty, the emergence of David Pastrnak was like a call from the Governor, arriving the moment before the switch was flipped and the electric chair turned on. The 18-year old came back from the World Juniors red hot, and has scored 4 goals in the last 3 games.
During this streak, the B's have beaten teams like Tampa Bay (1st in the Eastern Conference), and Pittsburgh (3rd in the East). They've won their way into the playoff picture, leapfrogged the Rangers Thursday night by beating them, and now find themselves 7th in the East.
And somehow they've done this without Tyler Seguin. Speaking of whom, the B's host Columbus on Saturday, then travel to Dallas to play Seguin and the Stars on Tuesday.
Do Rajon Rondo and Tyler Seguin hang out in Dallas, and if so, why isn't a film crew documenting their shenanigans?
Photo Credit:
AP
1. Tuukka Rask wasn't playing well
2. Milan Lucic wasn't playing well
3. The Bruins weren't dropping the gloves
4. The team couldn't make moves to improve because they were imprisoned in a cap jail they'd constructed themselves.
The Bruins have won 5 straight since I wrote that post. Why? Well, their winning, just like their losing, has had nothing to do with Tyler Seguin.
Tuukka Rask is playing better. The saves he made early in Thursday night's 3-0 win over the Rangers were the types of saves you'd expect a $7 million goalie to make. He's doing his job.
Lucic has awoken from his slumber. He's skating, he's getting involved in the play, and the result is production: 3 goals and 6 points these last 5 games.
The B's have 4 fighting majors in the 5 game winning streak. That doesn't include the two times Zdeno Chara threw punches against Paquette and Tampa Bay. The Bruins had 15 fights in their first 40 games. They have 4 fights in their last 5, which is more than twice the pace. More fights and more wins. Coincidence?
And finally, while the Bruins still find themselves in cap jail, with Peter Chiarelli facing the death penalty, the emergence of David Pastrnak was like a call from the Governor, arriving the moment before the switch was flipped and the electric chair turned on. The 18-year old came back from the World Juniors red hot, and has scored 4 goals in the last 3 games.
During this streak, the B's have beaten teams like Tampa Bay (1st in the Eastern Conference), and Pittsburgh (3rd in the East). They've won their way into the playoff picture, leapfrogged the Rangers Thursday night by beating them, and now find themselves 7th in the East.
And somehow they've done this without Tyler Seguin. Speaking of whom, the B's host Columbus on Saturday, then travel to Dallas to play Seguin and the Stars on Tuesday.
Do Rajon Rondo and Tyler Seguin hang out in Dallas, and if so, why isn't a film crew documenting their shenanigans?
Photo Credit:
AP
Thursday, January 15, 2015
How the Patriots could lose to the Colts
I'm feeling confident that the Patriots will beat the Colts on Sunday. And why not? They demolished Indy 42-20 a few weeks ago. The Colts beat a soft Cincinnati team and the crippled Broncos to get here. The Patriots' biggest weakness is protecting against a pass rush, and Indy doesn't have much of one. I could go on and on.
It seems impossible for the Patriots to lose.
Which is one reason it is possible. This Patriots team seems to play its best when they're doubted, not exalted. When people were asking Belichick if he was going to evaluate the quarterback position, this team annihilated the Bengals. When they were underdogs on the road in Indy, they threw the Colts around like ragdolls.
Yet when everyone expected them to beat the Dolphins in Week 1, they were embarrassed. When everyone expected them to crush the Jets in October and December, they won by 2 points, then by 1.
Combine overconfidence with a quality opponent like the Colts, and you get a recipe for disappointment.
I'm also worried about Bryan Stork's potential absence. The commonly held belief around town is that he won't be sorely missed because Indy doesn't have a formidable pass rush. So Stork's absence is being ignored. It shouldn't be.
The Pats dominated Indy 42-20 because the offensive line dominated Indy. With the loss of Stork, that decisive advantage becomes less decisive. In other words, the Patriots won so convincingly in November because of 5 offensive linemen. Those guys were the reasons they won. And one of the most pivotal of them will probably be on the sidelines Sunday. It's never good to lose one of the reasons you win.
I'm also concerned that the Colts will be able to go to the outside against the Patriots' defense. The Ravens did that with success last week, stretching the Pats with both running and passing plays.
Finally, the biggest reason the Patriots could lose to the Colts is if they beat themselves. And that's not very far-fetched. We've seen this team shoot themselves in the foot in big playoff games before. Welker's drops, Brady's intentional grounding in the Super Bowl, Chung's fake punt, the interception before halftime last week.
Then there's Josh "that's just what they'll be expecting us to do" McDaniels. The Patriots started the Ravens game with Brady under center, and with some handoffs. When they should have been throwing the ball out of the gun. The Colts struggle against the run, so maybe McDaniels will start with Brady in the gun and 5 WRs.
The Patriots should win. I think they will win. But you have to play to win. You have to show up and do your job.
Prediction: Patriots 31, Colts 24
It seems impossible for the Patriots to lose.
Which is one reason it is possible. This Patriots team seems to play its best when they're doubted, not exalted. When people were asking Belichick if he was going to evaluate the quarterback position, this team annihilated the Bengals. When they were underdogs on the road in Indy, they threw the Colts around like ragdolls.
Yet when everyone expected them to beat the Dolphins in Week 1, they were embarrassed. When everyone expected them to crush the Jets in October and December, they won by 2 points, then by 1.
Combine overconfidence with a quality opponent like the Colts, and you get a recipe for disappointment.
I'm also worried about Bryan Stork's potential absence. The commonly held belief around town is that he won't be sorely missed because Indy doesn't have a formidable pass rush. So Stork's absence is being ignored. It shouldn't be.
The Pats dominated Indy 42-20 because the offensive line dominated Indy. With the loss of Stork, that decisive advantage becomes less decisive. In other words, the Patriots won so convincingly in November because of 5 offensive linemen. Those guys were the reasons they won. And one of the most pivotal of them will probably be on the sidelines Sunday. It's never good to lose one of the reasons you win.
I'm also concerned that the Colts will be able to go to the outside against the Patriots' defense. The Ravens did that with success last week, stretching the Pats with both running and passing plays.
Finally, the biggest reason the Patriots could lose to the Colts is if they beat themselves. And that's not very far-fetched. We've seen this team shoot themselves in the foot in big playoff games before. Welker's drops, Brady's intentional grounding in the Super Bowl, Chung's fake punt, the interception before halftime last week.
Then there's Josh "that's just what they'll be expecting us to do" McDaniels. The Patriots started the Ravens game with Brady under center, and with some handoffs. When they should have been throwing the ball out of the gun. The Colts struggle against the run, so maybe McDaniels will start with Brady in the gun and 5 WRs.
The Patriots should win. I think they will win. But you have to play to win. You have to show up and do your job.
Prediction: Patriots 31, Colts 24
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
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
Monday, January 12, 2015
Patriots got the big score and the big stop when they needed to
When was the last time we saw a Patriots team score when they needed to score at the end of a playoff game, AND get a stop when they needed a stop? Actually, let's give the Patriots' defense credit for 1.5 stops, holding the Ravens to a field goal the drive before Brady and the offense drove for the game-winning touchdown.
In the first Super Bowl against the Giants, the Pats got the score, but not the stop at the end.
In the 2006 AFC Championship game against Indy, the Pats couldn't score touchdowns in the 4th quarter to win the game. They couldn't get stops either.
So as frightening as this game started, both sides of the ball ultimately did their job.
The game-winning drive was vintage Brady. He distributed the ball to 6 different receivers. He ran for a first down. And he threw a beautiful pass to Brandon LaFell for the touchdown. Danny Amendola made the biggest play of the series on 3rd and 6, breaking a tackle, and extending the ball forward to secure the first down.
The previous drive, the defense made a goal-to-go stand to hold Baltimore to 3 points. Cris Collinsworth correctly said "The difference between a field goal and touchdown here may be the game." It was.
On Baltimore's next drive, the Ravens moved the ball, but not in the big chunks they wanted to. Time was ticking away. And a Joe Flacco jump ball was finally hauled in by a Pats DB. Live by the chuck, die by the chuck.
It's unfortunate that the Patriots were in a position where they needed both a score and 1.5 stops to win. The Ravens dominated the game for the first 10 minutes, and I was getting flashbacks of past playoff embarrassments at the hands of the Ravens and Jets.
But this time the Pats had Rob Gronkowski. He made 2 big plays on the Patriots' first scoring drive: a 16 yard reception on 3rd and 8, and that big 46 yard gain. Gronk finished with 7 catches for 108 yards and a TD. And who knows how much his presence on the field, and the attention he drew from the defense, helped other receivers get open.
I've often criticized the Patriots for trying to be too clever on offense. In the 3rd quarter they had just the right amount of cleverness. The Ravens couldn't keep up with who was an eligible receiver and who was ineligible. Vereen was ineligible when Brady threw to Hoomanawanui. But the play before, Hoomanawanui was the ineligible one. You didn't hear it on TV, but the ref announced "Number 47 is ineligible, don't cover 47." Then Hooman was eligible on the next play, and Vereen was announced ineligible. The Ravens got confused, and John Harbaugh threw a hissy fit. Harbaugh called it deception, but it was lack of attention. To quote Robert the Bruce's diseased father in Braveheart "You let yourself be deceived."
That drive ended in a touchdown. And we all remember the trick play a few minutes later, Brady to Edelman to Amendola. It was the whitest touchdown in the NFL since the color barrier was broken in 1946 by Kenny Washington and Woody Strode. It probably aggravated Harbaugh too, since it was another example of deceptive play. Harbaugh is probably lobbying the NFL to outlaw play-action as well.
The Patriots won the second half 21-10. They've been an excellent second half team this season. Since the Chiefs debacle, the Patriots have outscored opponents 204-104 in the second half, allowing an average of 8 points, and scoring an average of 15.7. Going forward, it would be nice if the Patriots didn't NEED an amazing second half in order to win.
The Patriots outscored the Colts 28-10 in the second half of their Week 11 meeting. And that's who they'll play in the AFC Championship game on Sunday.
Photo Credit: Jim Rogash/Getty Images
In the first Super Bowl against the Giants, the Pats got the score, but not the stop at the end.
In the 2006 AFC Championship game against Indy, the Pats couldn't score touchdowns in the 4th quarter to win the game. They couldn't get stops either.
So as frightening as this game started, both sides of the ball ultimately did their job.
The game-winning drive was vintage Brady. He distributed the ball to 6 different receivers. He ran for a first down. And he threw a beautiful pass to Brandon LaFell for the touchdown. Danny Amendola made the biggest play of the series on 3rd and 6, breaking a tackle, and extending the ball forward to secure the first down.
The previous drive, the defense made a goal-to-go stand to hold Baltimore to 3 points. Cris Collinsworth correctly said "The difference between a field goal and touchdown here may be the game." It was.
On Baltimore's next drive, the Ravens moved the ball, but not in the big chunks they wanted to. Time was ticking away. And a Joe Flacco jump ball was finally hauled in by a Pats DB. Live by the chuck, die by the chuck.
It's unfortunate that the Patriots were in a position where they needed both a score and 1.5 stops to win. The Ravens dominated the game for the first 10 minutes, and I was getting flashbacks of past playoff embarrassments at the hands of the Ravens and Jets.
But this time the Pats had Rob Gronkowski. He made 2 big plays on the Patriots' first scoring drive: a 16 yard reception on 3rd and 8, and that big 46 yard gain. Gronk finished with 7 catches for 108 yards and a TD. And who knows how much his presence on the field, and the attention he drew from the defense, helped other receivers get open.
I've often criticized the Patriots for trying to be too clever on offense. In the 3rd quarter they had just the right amount of cleverness. The Ravens couldn't keep up with who was an eligible receiver and who was ineligible. Vereen was ineligible when Brady threw to Hoomanawanui. But the play before, Hoomanawanui was the ineligible one. You didn't hear it on TV, but the ref announced "Number 47 is ineligible, don't cover 47." Then Hooman was eligible on the next play, and Vereen was announced ineligible. The Ravens got confused, and John Harbaugh threw a hissy fit. Harbaugh called it deception, but it was lack of attention. To quote Robert the Bruce's diseased father in Braveheart "You let yourself be deceived."
That drive ended in a touchdown. And we all remember the trick play a few minutes later, Brady to Edelman to Amendola. It was the whitest touchdown in the NFL since the color barrier was broken in 1946 by Kenny Washington and Woody Strode. It probably aggravated Harbaugh too, since it was another example of deceptive play. Harbaugh is probably lobbying the NFL to outlaw play-action as well.
The Patriots won the second half 21-10. They've been an excellent second half team this season. Since the Chiefs debacle, the Patriots have outscored opponents 204-104 in the second half, allowing an average of 8 points, and scoring an average of 15.7. Going forward, it would be nice if the Patriots didn't NEED an amazing second half in order to win.
The Patriots outscored the Colts 28-10 in the second half of their Week 11 meeting. And that's who they'll play in the AFC Championship game on Sunday.
Photo Credit: Jim Rogash/Getty Images
Friday, January 09, 2015
Patriots-Ravens Drinking Game: Divisional Round Edition
Boston Blood Sox is not responsible for the illness, hospitalization, and death you will inevitably experience if you play this game.
Anytime a commentator says...
"We're on to..." = 1 drink from a beer
"Cincinnati" = 1 drink
"Frosty," "frigid," or anything cold related = 1 drink
The temperature = drink for as many seconds as there are degrees out
"Wind chill" = 1 shot of liquor
"Saturday" = 1 drink
"Night" = 1 drink
"Football" = 1 drink
"Round" = 1 drink
"Brady" = 1 drink
"Contract" = 1 drink
"Terrell" or "Darrelle" = 1 drink
"Jones" = 1 drink
"Smith" = 1 drink
"Hoomanawanui" or any variation = 1 drink
Any name that ends in "-ski" = 1 drink
"Offensive line" = 1 drink
"Issues" = 1 drink
"Panic" = 1 drink
Something about the Patriots' early season struggles = 1 drink
Something about Joe Flacco's playoff record = 1 drink
The other commentator's name = 1 drink
Something about Edgar Allen Poe (Poe is on screen) = 1 drink, 1 shot (bonus points for drinking Amontillado)
Anytime this happens...
Penalty flag thrown = 1 drink
Penalty against Brandon Browner = 1 shot
Penalty flag picked up = finish your beer and say "How 'bout them Cowboys?"
Josh McDaniels calls a cute play = 1 drink
The play actually works = 1 shot
Tom Brady points out the "mike" = 1 drink (bonus points for drinking Mike's Hard Lemonade, and you can command anyone else to finish their drink, but if drinking alone you must finish yours)
Brady says "Alpha Milk" = 1 drink (bonus points for drinking a White Russian, same authority as above)
Brady says any word beginning in F = 1 drink
Brady says any word ending in -uck = 1 drink
The Patriots go no huddle = 1 drink per snap
You want the Patriots to go no huddle but they're not = drink the entire time between snaps
Rob Gronkowski spikes the ball = finish your beer, then spike the empty to the ground (bonus points for glass bottles)
Danny Amendola catches a pass = an entire beer
Amendola celebrates another player's big play = 1 drink
You're worried that Julian Edelman is hurt = 1 drink
Edelman drops a pass = 1 drink
You're worried that Gronk is hurt = 1 drink
Gronk manhandles a Raven = 1 drink
Gronk manhandles a teammate = 1 drink
Gronk actually is hurt = finish your beer, drink a shot, then finish another beer, then go outside and cry
Brady gets hurried = 1 drink
Brady gets hit = 1 drink, 1 shot
Brady gets sacked = 1 drink, 1 shot, snort a line of painkillers
Vince Wilfork makes a big play = 1 drink
Jamie Collins or Chandler Jones make a big play = 1 drink
Wilfork forces and/or recovers a turnover = 1 drink, 1 shot
Wilfork scores a touchdown = 1 drink, 1 shot, devour a turkey leg
The Patriots block a kick/punt = finish your beer
Matthew Slater makes a special teams tackle = 1 drink
Touchback = 1 drink
Kickoff return = drink for the entire return
Anytime this is on screen...
Highlights of previous Patriots-Ravens playoff games = drink for the duration of the highlight
A graphic of previous playoff meetings = same rule, drink until it's off the screen
A thermometer = 1 drink, and the last person to take their drink has to stand outside for a minute
Ray Lewis (live or in highlights) = finish your beer, give an inspirational speech
Brady yelling = 1 drink
Belichick scowling = 1 drink
Jonas Gray standing on the sidelines = 1 drink
Bob Kraft = 1 drink
Kraft talking to someone = drink the entire time Kraft is talking
People ice skating or doing wintry things = go outside and stay outside until you finish your beer
Pedro Martinez = drink for 45 seconds
An Harbaugh = 1 drink
An angry Harbaugh = 1 shot
A replay of a ball maybe crossing a line, but since there's no sensors in the ball, these almost always incolcusive replays eat huge chunks of our lives = 1 drink per camera shot/angle, plus 1 shot if they zoom in on the ball
An actual raven = drop some molly, play with glowsticks (like a rave, get it?, bonus points if wearing a Welker jersey)
The words "Do your job" = do your job and finish your beer, and then whoever gets to the fridge first to get beers for everyone, gets to be Belichick and order people around until the next time Belichick is on screen.
Enjoy the game, and remember to get lubed up responsibly. And by that I mean designate a sober person to call 911 for you and contact your next of kin.
Clusterfuck 2024
You know that excitement and anxiety you feel before a big winter storm hits? That's what I feel like thinking about the impending Boston Olympics. There's a Nor'easter coming, and it's forecast to slam Boston in summer 2024.
Sullivan's Tap near the Garden, with its long bar, could host the fencing. The Gold's Gym next to Fenway could host the weightlifting. The beach volleyball could be held in Revere. We could have diving off the Tobin. Cycling on Brookline Ave, during rush hour. The 100 meter dash at Park Street, running between the Red Line and the Green Line. Hurdles over the panhandlers in Harvard Square. The balance beam on top of the Citgo sign. Water polo on the Fenway concourse when it floods.
Can you imagine the Opening Ceremony? Dropkick Murphy's played on repeat, Dennis Leary saying stuff quickly and bitterly, Rene Rancourt singing the anthem, and wall to wall Wahlbergs.
Do you watch the Summer Olympics? How much? All of it, or just some basketball, gymnastics, and of course beach volleyball? Well, Boston, prepare yourself to not only watch the games, but have all of them shoved in your face on a daily basis. You'll be drowning in the sweat of athletes. You'll have to be a judo blackbelt to fight the traffic. You'll have to be as flexible as a 75 pound Romanian gymnast to go through this ordeal without suffering a mental breakdown.
Boston's infrastructure can barely handle the strain of the daily commute. And it only takes one problem - such as a breakdown on 93, or a stopped train on the Red Line, or a fallen wire on the Commuter Rail tracks - for the whole house of cards to collapse.
Boston's bid for the 2024 Olympics hinges on public transportation to move spectators, officials, and participants around the city. There will be no centralized Olympic Park. Everything will be spread out, mostly at facilities attached to the city's universities. Fencing will be at MIT, field hockey at Harvard Stadium, rowing in Lowell. Yes, Lowell.
The innovative plan requires that large amounts of money are donated to schools for buildings that will be used for the Olympics, then become part of the university. UMass Boston, for instance, wants to build new dorms. These buildings could be used as an athletes' village before being converted for use by college freshman to pass out in after drinking 4 Smirnoff Ices.
It would be a reinvention of how the Olympics are played and paid for. Which scares the hell out of me. I love innovation, but figuring out new ways to do things means making mistakes. Mistakes cost money. The people who want the Olympics here can quote prices all they want. But we here in Boston know better than anyone that estimates mean nothing.
Seriously, how can you estimate an accurate cost for something that's never been done before?
When considering the Olympics, you shouldn't try to weigh costs vs. benefits. You need to look into who will profit, and who will pay. Weigh the takers vs. the payers. Suffolk and other contractors will profit. And I'm sure the unions doing the work won't ask for more money or anything. The people on these committees will all make a tidy salary. Cops will rack up the overtime with security details (you pay for that). Someone might get a new soccer stadium out of the deal. Hotels will clean up. Local businesses will make some money. There will be part-time work available for a short period. And the State government will be able to tax all of this (the construction, the wages made by workers and cops, hotel rooms, sales tax).
Just remember, every dollar made comes from somewhere.
Frankly, I'm not sure Boston could handle the strain on its infrastructure, even if it is improved. Imagine Marathon Monday, every day, for weeks. Now imagine you had to get to work on that day. Imagine you had to get from A to B, but on the way were the crowds from the archery and the high hurdles trying to get to their events.
What's the worst that could happen? An already antiquated and overused Green Line could break down, delaying events, making people late for work. Or worse, a train could derail. At the very least, public transportation will become a massive pain in the ass, as opposed to what you feel riding the T normally: numbness with the occasional acute flare up.
I'm not sure Bostonians want to deal with that. But if they do, then go for it. All I know is that if I'm living in Boston in 2024, then I'll rent my place during the Olympics and take a vacation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)