ME VS. GREG EASTERBROOK

This is a response to Greg Easterbrook’s column from Page 2 entitled: "Colts-Patriots tilt shaping as battle of Good vs. Evil." You can read it uninterrupted and in full (I only copied and pasted the parts about the Patriots) here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/071023&sportCat=nfl&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab1pos1

In this post, Greg’s words are italicized. Also, you’ll notice a dramatic drop off in writing quality when it’s my “turn” to write. This “dialogue” has been sent to Mr. Easterbrook via e-mail.

This is also a very long piece, so I’ll summarize a bit so you can decide whether or not to read it. Easterbrook says that the Colts-Pats game on Sunday is a battle between good and evil. I say that the Patriots aren’t that evil, and that it’s just a football game.

Enjoy!

"Patriots at Colts on Nov. 4 is shaping up to be one of the most attractive and exciting NFL regular-season games ever staged. The pairing is fabulous; the teams are the league's best; and there is a chance both will take the field undefeated. Plus, Patriots at Colts has a powerful, compelling narrative. Namely -- Good vs. Evil.

The fact that I don't even need to tell you which team represents Good and which stands for Evil says a lot about how low New England has sunk. You knew instantly which was which, didn't you?"

Well, Greg, I figured out who was going to be who because nobody has ever portrayed Peyton Manning as anything other than a pure, clean, God-fearing, church-going, bring home to mother, cornfed, country boy. Meanwhile, people like you accuse the Patriots of all sorts of “evil” things, such as videotaping other teams, and (gasp) SCORING AS MANY POINTS AS THEY CAN!!!

Okay, I just fainted from that last one, but I’m back.

"Argument for the Indianapolis Colts as paladins…"

Oh, boy, here we go.

Here are Dictionary.com’s definitions of paladin:
1. any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne.
2. any knightly or heroic champion.
3. any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause.

When you see that word, you just know ridiculousness lies ahead.

"…who carry the banner of that which is beneficent: Sportsmanship, honesty, modesty, devotion to community, embrace of traditional small-town life, belief in higher power, even love of laughter. "

Just a small little clarification against these assessments:

Most of the Patriots’ players are from small towns, just like the Colts‘ players. They went to big football schools, got drafted, and the rest is history. Also, Foxborough is a relatively small town. And patrolling the parking lots at Gillette Stadium, one will see countless license plates from places like Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire; the birthplaces of the American small town.

Most New England Patriots believe in some sort of higher power (saying that belief in a higher power is necessarily a “good” thing is prejudice, but I’ll let you slide, Greg).

Tom Brady has laughed, as has Bill Belichick, Tedy Bruschi, Rodney Harrison, Randy Moss, and everyone else on the team. And no, not all of these laughs were villainous in nature, and very few were wicked cackles.

"The Colts are the defending champions, so they obviously play well on the field. Yet after winning the Super Bowl, they have remained humble and appealing. Through prior years of postseason frustration, they never complained or pointed the finger outside their team."

The Colts never complained? Are you kidding me, Greg? How long have you been a sports fan? Do you know who Bill Polian is? He’s the President and GM of the Colts. He’s also on the NFL’s competition committee. He was also a VERY vocal complainer after the Patriots beat the Colts in the 2003 and 2004 AFC playoffs. He PUBLICLY whined about receivers being touched more than 5 yards from the line of scrimmage. He moaned and complained so loudly and so effectively that the NFL implemented new rules for contact made beyond 5 yards. These are widely known as the Patriot rules.



Bill Polian was and is at the top of the Colts organization, and he is nothing but a whiny bitch. And I’m not swearing here, Greg, Bill Polian is in fact a female dog.

"Their players are active in community affairs and don't carp about being assigned to a nonglamorous Farm Belt city with an antiquated stadium. Their coach, Tony Dungy, smiles in public and answers honestly whatever he is asked: He never yells at players or grimaces at bad plays and, when defeated, doesn't act as though it's the end of the world. Although religious, Dungy said on the night he won the Super Bowl that God doesn't care about football games, which shows perspective. The team's star, Peyton Manning, stands for love of family, constantly appearing in public with his brothers, father and mother. Manning is happily married and a major donor to a children's hospital. Manning spends a lot of time at children's camps and events, and he constantly makes fun of himself. Ladies and gentlemen, representing Good, the Indianapolis Colts."

Does Coach Dungy take all the players out to pizza after games?

As much as I hate them, the Colts are indeed a classy organization, and are, without a doubt, one of the elite organizations in the NFL, and in all of American sports. However, the Patriots aren’t the evil hate-mongers that you are about to make them out to be, Greg.

Did you know that…

This spring, Tom Brady went to Uganda and Ghana in support of DATA (Debt, AIDs, Trade, Africa) and ONE.org.



Bill Belichick donates his time to Lazarus House, a shelter for the poor and needy. He serves food there (with his family), and donates hundreds of autographed items for their charity golf tournaments and auctions.

Tedy Bruschi spends a great deal of time being the MC at charity events for hospitals. He also made and sold t-shirts to help victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.

The Patriots organization is involved in many different charitable pursuits, and has a policy of helping local charities through player appearances, cheerleader appearances, and many other means. Here is the Patriots’ site for community/charity information.

http://www.patriots.com/community/index.cfm?ac=charitableprograms

Greg, I suggest you go to this site and do some hardcore investigative journalism. Then get back to me about how evil the Patriots are even through charitable pursuits.. Maybe the blood drive is really run by vampires?



"Argument for the New England Patriots as scoundrels in the service of that which is baleful: Dishonesty, cheating, arrogance, hubris, endless complaining even in success. The Patriots have three Super Bowl rings, but that jewelry is tarnished by their cheating scandal."

Just because you keep insisting the rings are tarnished, doesn’t mean that they are. In fact, they’re quite exquisite.

"They run up the score to humiliate opponents -- more on that below -- thus mocking sportsmanship. "
So now you’re in Belichick’s head? You know why he does what he does? You beat 31 other NFL head coaches to it, Greg.

"Their coach snaps and snarls in public, seeming to feel contempt for the American public that has brought him wealth and celebrity. Victory seems to give Bill Belichick no joy, and defeat throws him into fury."



Is Belichick the first head coach to be standoffish? No. I’ll admit, Belichick is a mean man when it comes to the media. But his job isn’t to placate you and your colleagues, Greg. It’s to win football games. Belichick isn’t the first mean head coach, but he is one of the first mean coaches who doesn’t give the media funny sound bytes like Bill Parcells or Bobby Knight. And you guys loathe him for that, don’t you, Greg?

"Belichick and the rest of the top of the Patriots' organization continue to refuse to answer questions about what was in the cheating tapes -- and generally, you refuse to answer questions if you have something to hide."

Why the hell would the Patriots answer questions about the tapes? There is no value in telling everyone what was on the tapes. And if you got caught cheating, wouldn’t you do your best to move on and not talk about it? If you don’t answer all of my questions, Greg, does that mean YOU have something to hide?

"The team has three Super Bowl triumphs, yet its players regularly whine about not being revered enough."

When was this? They might complain about not being respected, or being underdogs (See: Super Bowl XXXVI), but considering the fact that you’re calling them “evil” maybe they have a right to complain about the way the media portrays them.

"The team's star, Tom Brady, is a smirking celebrity-chaser who dates actresses and supermodels but whose public charity appearances are infrequent."

If I could go out with Bridget Moynahan and/or Gisele Bundchen, I would. I don’t see this as being “evil” I see it as being a red-blooded American male.



And how frequent are your public charity appearances, Greg? And just because they’re not public, doesn’t mean that they don’t happen.

"That constant smirk on Brady's face reminds one of Dick Cheney; people who smirk are fairly broadcasting the message, 'I'm hiding something.'"

Maybe Brady is hiding WMDs. You know, Greg, I’ve seen Peyton Manning smirk. I’ve seen Dallas Clark smirk. I’ve seen Dwight Freeney smirk. If I had Randy Moss for a receiver, and Gisele Bundchen for a girlfriend, you’d better believe I’d be smirking.



"The Patriots seem especially creepy at this point because we still don't know whether they have told the full truth about the cheating scandal -- or even whether they really have stopped cheating. They say they have, but their word is not exactly gold at this juncture. Ladies and gentlemen, representing Evil, the New England Patriots."

Begin sarcasm.

I work for the Patriots. I’m an usher at Gillette Stadium, but I’m really there for my telepathic and telekinetic abilities. You see, I read the minds of the opposing coaches and telepathically send those messages to Coach Belichick. I use my telekinesis to move the ball in the air so Tom Brady’s touchdown passes find their mark. We also poisoned the Redskins’ Gatorade with valium, we kidnapped the families of the entire Buffalo Bills offensive line and threatened to kill them if they didn’t let us win, and we didn’t play the Dolphins in Miami, we played Florida International University dressed up as the Dolphins. We’re evil.

End of sarcasm.

"In the Good vs. Evil narrative of the Colts and Pats, running up the score is a telling factor: It reveals a team's sportsmanship or lack of same, and whether a team shows sportsmanship in public might offer insights into its character in private. New England is scoring so many points the Patriots offense looks like cherries and oranges spinning on a slot machine. The Flying Elvii stand plus-159 in net points, by far the best scoring margin in the NFL. This is supposed to be impressive. But I think it's creepy, and New England's creepy on-field behavior is only underscoring the seediness of the Beli-Cheat scandal."

I’ve heard many words to describe the Patriots’ high scoring games: Classless, unsportsmanlike, derogatory, disrespectful, spiteful, arrogant, mean. But to call it creepy? Greg, are you honestly creeped out because a team scores 41.4 points per game? That creeps you out? I’ll be honest, spiders creep me out, but high powered NFL offenses don’t. I guess your fear makes more sense, though. Especially if those players are “evil.”

"On Sunday, the Patriots led the winless Dolphins 42-7 late in the third quarter, yet Tom Brady was still behind center."

Do you want to know why he was still in there? Because the Patriots play Indianapolis, and Pittsburgh, and other good teams that will challenge them for 4 quarters. If Brady and the starters become accustomed to playing only 2 or 3 easy quarters of football, how the hell will they be able to handle 4 difficult quarters against a team like the Colts?

And what the hell does it matter if the Dolphins are winless? Shouldn’t the Patriots play against the winless Dolphins with the same intensity as the undefeated Colts?

"And he wasn't just handing off the ball to grind the clock, either. Rather, he was back in the shotgun, still throwing to run up the score. Here is a summary of the Patriots' possession with a 42-7 lead late in the third and Brady, Randy Moss and the rest of their offensive starters on the field: Pass, run, pass, run, pass, pass."

In the third quarter of a blowout game, the game is not over. A team could be up 70-0, and the game is not over. How long does it take for an opponent to score 10 touchdowns? Ten plays.

You run out the clock by getting first downs, not necessarily by running. If you throw high percentage passes, keep the ball in bounds, and move the ball downfield, you run out the clock just as efficiently as a running attack. The field is only 100 yards long. Eventually, you’re going to run into the end zone. Should you just stop there and kneel? Kick a meaningless field goal?

"When backup quarterback Matt Cassel entered the game in the fourth quarter, with the Patriots leading 42-14 -- a margin larger than the greatest fourth-quarter comeback in NFL history (see below) -- did he hand off the ball to grind the clock? Here were Patriots' coaches first three calls: Run, pass, pass. Cassel's second pass was intercepted and returned for a touchdown, and Brady re-entered the game. Did he grind down the clock? Pass, pass, run, run, pass. The final score was 49-28."

I’m confused. If the Patriots are trying to embarrass other teams by scoring as many points as possible, why the hell would they replace their star quarterback with a guy who didn’t even start in college? That doesn’t seem logical, Greg.

And in the Miami game, you’re forgetting that Laurence Maroney was coming off injury, and Sammy Morris was injured in the Dallas game. That means that Heath Evans, Kevin Faulk, and Kyle Eckel were New England’s RBs. These guys probably aren’t going to get first downs on their own. And you run out the clock with first downs, not 3 and outs. And if you want to really shorten the game, you’ll score, because that means it would take even more time for your opponent to come back on you.

"The week before, New England led Dallas 42-27 and had second-and-goal on the Cowboys' 6-yard line with 1:43 remaining and Dallas out of timeouts. Three kneel-downs would have ended the game."

That isn’t true, three kneel downs would have left 0:23 on the clock. And it was 41-27 (three score game) not 42-27. It’s next to impossible for a team to score three touchdowns and three 2 point conversions in 23 seconds, but it’s still only next to impossible. The Patriots ran the ball three times in this situation, including a 4th down run by Kyle Eckel. The run resulted in a touchdown. After the extra point (if they were running up the score, wouldn’t the Patriots have gone for 2?) it was 48-27 and the game was over.

"The Patriots then kicked off, and Dallas got the ball with 13 seconds remaining. Cowboys coach Wade Phillips showed the dignity Belichick lacked and ordered a kneel-down. Beyond defeating division-leading Dallas, New England has beaten six teams with a combined record of 11-27. In New England's six games against nonwinning teams, Belichick kept the starters in long after the outcome was decided, trying to run up the score. This doesn't just demonstrate Belichick has no class (although it certainly demonstrates that). It's worse -- this suggests something vindictive."



Greg, your column suggests that you’re the vindictive one.

"Yes, you can find games the Colts have won by a big margin in recent years, and yes, Manning was on the field through the fourth quarter at Jacksonville last night."

In 2004 the Colts won games 31-17, 35-14, 49-14, 41-10, 41-9, 51-24, and 49-24 in the playoffs. Were you or anyone else accusing them of being classless by running up the score back then?

"But in that quarter, the Colts mainly ran to grind the clock: If they had wanted to win by more, they likely could have. As for New England's running up the score, supposedly the Patriots are angry about the Beli-Cheat scandal and are scoring points like crazy to express their anger against the world. Wait a moment: What right do the Patriots have to be angry? They, after all, are the ones who admitted to systematic cheating. Other people didn't impose that situation on them -- they cheated of their own free accord, imposing the tainting of their accomplishments on themselves. The Patriots were not wronged; they wronged others. Yet they're mad about being caught, and they seem to want to take out their bad feelings about themselves by embarrassing second-echelon teams. That bespeaks lack of character. That's Dark Side. That's Evil."



Here you go again, Greg, claiming to understand why Bill Belichick does what he does. Once again, you’ve outsmarted a 3 time Super Bowl Champion head coach. Maybe Belichick scores so many points in order to keep his team in a 4 quarter mindset instead of a 3 quarter one. Maybe he feels the need to keep throwing because he has three guys at WR that are used to being primary targets. Furthermore, one of those guys (Moss) has a reputation of giving up when he isn’t involved in the offense. But you never thought about those reasons, did you, Greg? Why not? Because they don’t fit into your agenda. You’re trying to find reasons to disregard and dismiss the Patriots and their head coach. Anything the Patriots do, you spin into a negative.

"Suppose New England's version of events is true -- that Belichick is a fine person who made an honest mistake about rules that seemed clearly written to everyone else but somehow were confusing to him and that he regrets his honest mistake. If this were so, wouldn't Belichick be attempting to convince the world he is a good guy by showing sportsmanship at every turn?"

Have you ever seen the way Bill Belichick dresses? Does he dress like a man who cares about what other people think of him? Have you ever heard him talk? Does he talk like a man who cares what others think of him?



Are you really asking that Belichick, in order to demonstrate to the country that he’s a good guy, NOT score as many points as he has? Maybe if he throws the December game against Miami, that would make him appear even more benevolent, and lovable.

"Instead, he is raising his middle finger to the rest of the NFL, to the sporting media, even to the NFL fans who made his wealth and celebrity possible. If he were a misunderstood man who regrets an honest mistake, wouldn't he be candid and open in public because making his life an open book would convince us he's sorry for what he did? Instead, in public, Belichick continues to glare, stonewall and act offended that mere mortals dare to address him. There is not the slightest hint that Belichick is sorry for what he did -- only sorry he got caught. Innocent people falsely accused crave the recovery of their reputation, working hard to convince the world they are good. Creepy people who think they can get away with something act belligerent and show poor sportsmanship, which is what Belichick is doing right now."

Bill Belichick is not sorry for what he did. His job isn’t to be sorry, or to be nice to the media, or to be a friendly guy. He gets that wealth and that celebrity for winning football games. I think it’s fair to say that he has fulfilled that job requirement.

"Since Belichick took over the Patriots and began the franchise's remarkable run, he and his team have been praised, praised, praised, praised, praised, praised, praised, praised, praised, praised, praised; criticized when it was discovered New England had engaged in what commissioner Roger Goodell himself called "a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid long-standing rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition"; then -- after about a week of criticism -- praised, praised, praised. This is not a sequence of experiences that would leave an honorable person angry at the world. Yet Belichick acts that way, and he appears to be encouraging anger in his players, which is itself unsportsmanlike."

So now Belichick is unsportsmanlike for encouraging football players to be angry? What mood fits the game of football better than anger? Tenderness? Happiness? Jubilation? Horniness? Depression? Despondency? Love?

I think you’re the angry one, Greg. You and others in the media like you seem to be angry at all the hype the Patriots are getting. It is strange for a team to be maligned for one week, then the next week have predictions of a 16-0 season. I’m a Patriots fan and the hype is too much for even me. As a Patriots hater, you must be going out of your mind.

But it isn’t the Patriots’ fault that ESPN, Fox, and CBS are ball washing. It doesn’t make the Patriots evil. And quite frankly, this dichotomy in the media between those who think the Patriots are perfect, and those who think they are evil, is funny to watch. I would like to see one member of the media say “It’s week 9, let’s not go overboard. The Patriots are good, but there’s lots of football left.” Then I’d like to see the same reporter say “They cheated, they were caught, they were punished, it’s a shame that they did that, but it doesn’t take away from the fact that they’re a good team.”

"Perhaps you can say in Belichick's defense that the modern American ethos encourages us all to feel sorry for ourselves -- so much so that even someone to whom football has brought wealth, celebrity and Super Bowl rings can tell himself he's a victim. Perhaps you can say in Belichick's defense that claiming victim status is a solid psychological ploy for the New England players -- who are not to blame for their coach's cheating, which they most likely did not know was happening. The New England players still might suffer some long-term harm from the cheating, though: Given the image New England is projecting, would you want Patriots' players endorsing your product?"

And we all know that endorsements are the most important thing in the world, just ask Peyton Manning, who is on pace to break his own record this season for commercials completed.



"But if the Patriots are unfairly maligned, why the whole screw-you act they are staging? If the Patriots were unfairly maligned, they'd be trying hard to convince us their hearts are pure, and that distinctly is not what they are doing."

Greg, the Patriots do not care about what you or I think about their hearts. Nor should they.

"Sure, many New England players are awesome performers: Both of Moss' touchdown catches Sunday came when he was double-teamed; the Flying Elvii offensive line was flawless again; Mike Vrabel, waived by Pittsburgh, might be the best linebacker in the NFL. But if the Patriots are so awesome they don't need to cheat, then why were they cheating in Week 1?"

The Patriots are good because they do everything in their power in order to win. Saying “If they’re so good, why did they cheat?” is similar to asking “If they’re so good, why do they try 100%? Why do they practice? Why do they watch film?” Good teams will do anything and everything in order to win, even if they don’t need to do it.

"The whole situation remains creepy."

Greg, I think you need to find another word. Creepy is that guy on the bus talking to himself about the government. Creepy is that sound you hear in the bushes at 4 AM. Creepy is being followed by a car for a few miles. Creepy is waking up with your door unlocked and opened.

Mark Chmura is creepy. Mike Vick is creepy. Pacman Jones is creepy. These guys actually did evil and creepy things.

Creepy is not scoring a lot of points. Creepy is not videotaping an opponents’ signals. Creepy is not being crass to the media. If you want to say that Belichick’s clothes make him look like a creep, I’ll agree with you wholeheartedly. Otherwise, you should stop calling the Patriots creeps.

"Should New England continue on and win the Super Bowl without a major attitude shift toward nice-guy behavior -- and should the year end without the NFL's ever explaining what New England evidence it destroyed or why -- there could be a huge amount of cynicism about this NFL season."

From you and your media cronies, but nobody else. Some people might be bored by it, and the many fans who dislike the Patriots will be angry, but I don’t think people will write letters to the NFL saying “The Patriots aren’t very nice, I’m mad that they won the Super Bowl because they aren’t as polite as Peyton Manning, or as funny as Bill Parcells.”

"Cynicism doesn't sell a sports product, nor is it what the NFL should be marketing to the young."

Of all the things that have become associated with the NFL in the past few seasons (dog fighting, making it rain, sex boats, DUIs, steroids, the Bengals, Jon Kitna’s Halloween costume) do you really think running up the score is anywhere near the top of the list of things that the NFL shouldn’t be marketing to kids?

"That's why the Pats at Colts game Nov. 4 so clearly represents Good vs. Evil. The Colts stand for everything the NFL, and sports enthusiasts, should be proud of."

Like whining about being hit by opposing players, or constantly begging officials for flags.

"The Colts stand for a positive future for the NFL. The Patriots stand for -- well, wouldn't it be nice if the Patriots would explain to us what they stand for. When Good meets Evil, I know who I'll be rooting for."

Greg, I’ll let you in on a little secret. As I mentioned earlier, I work for the Patriots as an usher. And in my short time working there, and in the years I’ve been a fan, I’ve learned what the Patriots stand for. Do you want to know what it is? It’s victory. Plain and simple. The Patriots want to win. They don’t care about how they win, why they win, when they win, who they win against. They just want to win. So maybe they aren’t the best example for a pee-wee team when it comes to attitude or sportsmanship. But they are a great example for other NFL teams when it comes to winning.

Greg, you’ve really got to get off of your soap box before you get a leg cramp. You’ve been standing up there, jumping up and down about the Patriots since the whole camera thing started. The undefeated Patriots are playing the undefeated Colts on Sunday. Can’t you just enjoy that in and of itself? Can’t you just enjoy the two best teams in the NFL squaring off on the field? Why do you try to turn it into such pageantry, such a moral contest? It isn’t good vs. evil, it’s the Patriots vs. the Colts. Isn’t that entertaining enough, Greg?

It’s really a shame because you’re such a good writer, and your Page 2 contributions almost always make me laugh. Maybe you wrote this good vs. evil thing as a humorous piece, but I didn’t pick up on that tone. You seem to loathe the Patriots and all they stand for, which is fine if you’re just a fan, but you're also a member of the media. Haven't you heard the expression "There's no cheering in the press box?” And even if you didn’t want the Patriots to win, why are you proselytizing about their evils, trying to convert people into Patriot haters like yourself? It’s just a game, Greg. It will be played this Sunday in Indianapolis, not on Judgment Day in Armageddon.

CHAMPIONS!

Talking to some fellow Sox fans the past few days, a few of them mentioned their desire to see the Red Sox win at Fenway. They actually wanted the Rockies to win two games in Denver just so the Sox could celebrate winning a World Series at home. These people are stupid, and very forgetful. Could you imagine going back in time to 1986 or 1975 or 1967 or 1946 or 1932 and telling a Red Sox fan "I won't be 100% happy unless the Sox win it in Fenway." You'd get slapped in the face.

This is the first time the Red Sox have won multiple World Series in the same decade since the 1910s. That is also the only decade during which the Sox won it multiple times. The three year gap in between the 2004 title and this one is the shortest title gap since the two year gap between the 1916 and 1918 championships.

This is unreal. It just doesn't feel like it actually happened. It's not supposed to happen. A fluke World Series in 2004 was maybe possible, but to win two out of four? That can't happen, right?

But then one looks at how this team was built, and one realizes that it is very possible. Josh Beckett was a failure last season, but he still had amazing stuff. He became more of a pitcher this year, and if he doesn't win the Cy Young it will be a joke considering the performances of Carmona and Sabathia in the playoffs (I know that awards are voted on before the playoffs, but it will still be funny if Sabathia or Carmona get it). Behind Beckett were question marks, but they were deep in question marks. Matsuzaka, Wakefield, Schilling, Bucholz, Lester, and Tavarez all had impressive stretches of starts.

Then there was that bullpen. The best bullpen in baseball. It wasn't the deepest, and there were lots of guys in there who should seriously consider playing percussion instruments as their first job instead of playing baseball. However, the back end of it was extremely good.

Moreover, the bullpen was managed beautifully by Francona and Farrell. After Papelbon ran out of gas last season, the Sox used him carefully throughout 2007. They never had him pitch more than 2 days in a row, and they tried to keep his workload as regular as possible. Okajima was a huge help in this matter, as he was able to close out games when Papelbon was unavailable. Okajima also allowed the Sox to keep Papelbon in the pen until the 9th inning. Mike Lowell was the MVP of the team, but Okajima was a very close second. Dollar for dollar, Okajima was the best investment on the Sox. The amount of energy Papelbon still had in October is a credit to Francona and Farrell.

When the Yankees came surging back, many fans in Boston moaned about the Red Sox resting Okajima, Youkilis, Manny, and Ortiz. But the post-season performances of these guys more than justified the rest they were given.

The Red Sox offense also deserves a great deal of credit. It was not the best offense we've seen in Boston, not by a longshot. But it still had the potential to score sufficient runs to win any kind of game. Mike Lowell's contributions behind Manny and Ortiz were invaluable. Youkilis' hot stretch in May fueled the Sox for more than a month. Pedroia was the Rookie of the Year. And even though Drew and Lugo sucked in the regular season, they are still good players, and both came through in the post-season, Drew more than Lugo.

Then there were the youngsters. Pedroia, Bucholz, Papelbon, Delcarmen, and Ellsbury were phenomenal. Lester was also very solid. And these guys will be contributing to the Sox for years to come.

After tomorrow's parade, and a few weeks of afterglow, an interesting off-season will begin to draw the attention of Red Sox Nation. Mike Lowell and Curt Schilling will both be free agents. The aging Tim Wakefield has an option that may or may not be renewed. Alex Rodriguez will be a free agent. Coco Crisp will probably be traded after the emergence of Jacoby Ellsbury. The Red Sox bullpen needs a serious overhaul in middle relief.

But I have faith. This ownership group has built two championship teams. The '04 and '07 squads have very little in common. New first-baseman, new second-baseman, new short-stop, new third-baseman, new center fielder, new right fielder, new closer, new set-up guy, new #1 pitcher, new #3 pitcher, new #5 pitcher(s). But both teams had similar professional attitudes of going to the ballpark and just playing the game. That is a credit to the manager and the general manager.

The Red Sox are champions again! Go nuts, people!

RED SOX BREAK RECORDS, AND ROCKIES

Were the Rockies just rusty after over a week off? Or were the Red Sox just better than them last night. I think it was a combination of both.

This game was very similar to Game 1 of the ALCS against Cleveland. Beckett pitched a gem, and the Sox bats touched up a good pitcher. The Rockies might have been coming off a lengthy lay off, but the Red Sox deserve most of the credit for their 13-1 thrashing last night.

Beckett was amazing, striking out the first 4 men he faced, and 5 of the first 6 Colorado batters. He allowed a run in the 2nd off a pair of doubles, but that was all the significant offense the Rockies could muster against him. He struck out 9 in 7 innings, leaving with a pitch count of 93. Had the game been close, he could have gone another inning, but there was no need.

Dustin Pedroia led off the offensive assault for the Sox with a leadoff Monster shot. Then Youkilis crushed a double. Ortiz moved him to 3rd with a groundout, then Manny knocked Youk in with a single. After Lowell flew out, Varitek singled, Drew doubled, and Manny scored. It appeared as though Varitek also could have scored, but he was held up a la Kenny Lofton. However, it didn't really matter. The game was already over.

The Rockies and Sox each got runs in the 2nd inning. Francis appeared to settle down in the 3rd, allowing only a bunt single by Lugo. But with 2 outs in the 4th, he loaded the bases. Varitek hit a ground rule double, and the Sox scored 2 more.

The Sox had another 2 out rally in the 5th. Youkilis had another double, as did Ortiz. Manny had an RBI single, Lowell had a double, Varitek walked, Drew had an RBI single, Lugo walked with the bases loaded, then Ellsbury walked with the bases loaded, then Pedroia walked with the bases loaded. The 7 run 5th inning was the death knell of the Rockies.

Everybody on ESPN is saying that the Rockies were just rusty. And maybe they were. Then again, it wasn't like Francis just didn't have it. He made some horrible pitches in the 1st, but he was still throwing strikes. The rallies the Sox put together were almost entirely with 2 outs. The Sox scored 11 runs with 2 outs.

The fact that Colorado got 6 hits and a run off Beckett doesn't necessarily mean they were rusty. The man is pitching like a god this post-season. If anything, getting a run and 6 hits was a major achievement for Colorado's offense.

Anyway, the Red Sox set a record for runs scored in Game 1 of a World Series. They also have scored 10+ runs in three straight playoff games, which is unprecedented. The 8 doubles the Sox had last night is the most in a World Series game since 1925.

COLORADO'S ADVANTAGES

If I were a betting man (and the odds weren’t 2:1), I’d probably put my money on the Red Sox to win the World Series. But my optimism is countered by a massive pessimism, built up from years of watching the Sox fail.

The Red Sox are the favorite, but not by much, in my mind. Anything can happen in the playoffs, and any team can beat any other team, as the Cardinals demonstrated last year.

The Rockies have several advantages in their favor.

The long lay off:
Everybody is saying that the long break the Rockies have had to “endure” will leave them cold, and out of rhythm. This is possible, but it could also prove to be an advantage for them. They are physically and emotionally fresh. It isn’t as if they’ve been lying around all day long in their Denver home, watching TV and drinking Coors Light. They’ve been practicing and playing intrasquad games. They haven’t been worn down by flights to and from Cleveland, 5 hour games, and nerve racking tension.

And how long do cobwebs last when they’re shaken loose? If the Rockies are rusty, they will probably find their form after a few innings. And they might all be rusty at the plate, but if Francis is on his game, what will that matter? And don’t starting pitchers have lay offs in between EVERY start?

Pitching Depth:
The Red Sox will be putting Josh Beckett on the mound in Game 1, followed by Schilling, then Matsuzaka, then Jon Lester. Beckett has been lights out this post-season, but after that, performances have been (I can’t resist) rocky.

Schilling had a great start in the ALDS, then a poor Game 2 in the ALCS. He pitched well in Game 6, but how difficult is it to pitch when your teammates give you a big lead? Matsuzaka’s 5 innings of work in Game 7 was stellar compared to his previous playoff outings. And what the hell is Jon Lester going to do? You want to talk about rust, Lester hasn’t started a game since September 26.

Jeff Francis had a solid ERA (4.22 ERA in Colorado, not too shabby) and has been the best pitcher on the Rockies this post-season, winning both of his starts, which were both on the road. He doesn’t have the playoff pedigree of Beckett, but he matches up well. Moreover, he’s pitching better than Sabathia or Carmona were. Much better.

Ubaldo Jimenez has also pitched well in 2 starts. Unlike Schilling, Jimenez has been consistent this post-season.

Josh Fogg (from Lynn, MA) is 2-0, with a relief appearance for a win, and a win in his first start of the post-season. He’s allowed 1 run in 8 innings. He’s also kept his pitch count low at 13.75 pitches per inning. This is essential to do when facing the Red Sox

The Red Sox bullpen has been carried by Papelbon-Okajima-Timlin. Apart from this trio, the Sox bullpen has been dreadful. Gagne sucked, Delcarmen was inconsistent, Lopez was atrocious, and Lester struggled. The Sox lose Lester to the rotation, and Kyle Snyder takes Tim Wakefield’s roster spot; but most of the bullpen is still the same. Lights out at the top, crap at the bottom.

In their 7 post-season wins, the Rockies have not had their starting pitcher go 7 innings or more. They’ve gotten quality starts, but they’ve relied on their bullpen extensively.

Closer Manuel Corpas has allowed 1 run in 8.2 IP. He’s recorded 5 saves, has struck out 6, and has walked a big fat 0.

Latroy Hawkins has pitched 3 scoreless innings of relief. Brian Fuentes had one bad outing, but has otherwise pitched very well. Ryan Speier has allowed 1 hit in 2.1 innings of work. He also got a Save. Matt Herges has pitched 3.1 scoreless innings.

These are all small sample sizes for the Rockies, but that’s the point. They’re small because they’re undefeated in the playoffs. And they’re undefeated because their starting pitchers have done well, going 6+ innings, and turning it over to a bullpen that has been next to untouchable.

D-Fense! D-Fense! D-Fense!
The Rockies do not give you extra outs. In the ALCS, we saw the Indians make some great plays early in the series and keep the Red Sox bats stymied. Then their gloves left them and the Red Sox capitalized.

The Red Sox have a very opportunistic lineup. Extra outs will lead to extra runs.

The Sox, on the other hand, have some defensive liabilities. Manny Ramirez in a spacious Coors Field outfield might be one of the most entertaining things on television this October. And Julio Lugo sucks.

Home Field Advantage
Everybody is talking about the atmosphere at Fenway Park, and how much of an advantage that is. Folks, this ain’t football. Croud noise doesn’t disrupt the snap count, or cause false starts. And the Rockies are professional athletes. They’re not intimidated.

The Rockies might have the biggest home field advantage when the series goes to Denver. The Red Sox will have to sit one of their three best hitters EVERY night. Either Youkilis, the guy who hit .500 in the ALCS; Ortiz, the biggest clutch hitter on the team; or Lowell, the most consistent hitter for the Sox this season. This is a massive edge for the Rockies.

The Red Sox outfielders will also have to deal with fly balls that travel farther than they normally would. A well struck ball at Coors Field travels about 7 to 10% more than at sea-level. JD Drew has experience playing the outfield there, and Jacoby Ellsbury has speed to make up for misjudging a fly ball, but what about Manny Ramirez. All I can say is “Yikes!”

Nobody Knows Them:
Not only do you get the whole “World vs. Us” mentality that sports teams thrive in, but the Red Sox just aren’t that familiar with these guys. The Sox do much better (especially at the plate) against familiar competition. These guys are not familiar.

The Red Sox have a mere 41 career at-bats against Jeff Francis. JD Drew has 10 of them.

The Sox are hitting 1.000 off Jimenez, but it was a single by Julio Lugo in 1 at-bat.

The Sox have seen Fogg 98 times, but 5 of those were Matt Clement, 2 were Josh Beckett, 21 at-bats were by Drew, 19 by Lugo, and 11 by Cora.

The Sox have 7 at-bats against Manny Corpas.

The Sox have more at-bats against Latroy Hawkins (66), than they do against any Colorado pitcher that isn’t named Josh Fogg.


So as we all know, the Red Sox are the favorite, but it isn’t by much. The Rockies have a great deal of things going for us, and they can definitely beat us. They can even sweep us.

2007 AMERICAN LEAGUE CHAMPIONS

Can you believe it? The Red Sox are in the World Series. AGAIN!!!! For the second time in four seasons, the Sox are the best team in the American League.

This is something new for the Red Sox. We're used to long droughts in between World Series. It was 18 years in between 1986 and 2004. Eleven years in between '75 and '86. Eight years in between '67 and '75. Twenty-one years in between '46 and '67. Twenty-eight years in between 1918 and '46. For the first time since the 1910s, the Red Sox will be playing in a World Series multiple times in a decade. By the way, we won 4 World Series in that decade.

Game 7 last night was a nerve racking duel until both bullpens were in the game. Westbrook got out of tough jams with the double play ball. Matsuzaka also escaped trouble thanks to the double play. All in all, Matsuzaka pitched a solid game. He went 5, allowing 2 runs. He sputtered at the end, but he gave us a great chance to win the game.

Something we did reminded me of the 2004 team. We kept piling on. In Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS, we got a nice lead, then sat back as Jason Giambi chipped away at us, then the Yankees rallied and won the game in extra innings. In Game 7 of the 2004 ALCS, we got out to an early lead, but kept adding on. We did the same thing last night.

The MVP of the series was Josh Beckett. That was a no brainer. He went 2-0, pitching 14 innings, allowing 3 runs off 9 hits and 1 walk. He struck out 18. His 8 inning, 1 run performance in Game 5 was perhaps the turning point of the series. It forced a return to Fenway Park and seemed to bedazzle Cleveland's hitters for the remaining games.

An honorable mention should go to Kevin Youkilis, who hit .500 in the series. That is not a typo, he hit .500, going 14 for 28. He scored 10 times and knocked in 7. His OBP was .576, and he slugged .929. He hit 3 homers, a double, and a triple. He only struck out 3 times.

Another honorable mention should go to Manny Ramirez, who went .409 with 2 homers, 10 RBI, and an OBP of .563. Manny also had a big outfield assist of Lofton in Game 7. Although Lofton appeared safe, the throw was good enough to help fool the umpire.

Toward the end of the series, David Ortiz and Mike Lowell cooled off a bit. Ortiz had 3 RBI in the series and wound up with a .292 average. He did get on base, though, and was able to score 7 runs.

Lowell wound up with a .333 average for the series. He had 8 RBI, but only scored 3 runs, mostly due to ineffectiveness by the hitters behind him.

Dustin Pedroia and JD Drew started off slow, but picked up the slack at the end. Pedroia exploded last night and finished the series at .345 with 8 runs scored and 5 RBI. Drew had the big hit in Game 6 and wound up hitting .360 with 6 RBI in the series.

The bullpen trio of Papelbon-Okajima-Timlin performed perfectly. Combined, these three had 13.1 innings pitched, all scoreless. They allowed 8 hits, 4 walks, and struck out 9. Our other bullpen pitchers, well, they didn't do so good.

Julio Lugo had one of the worst playoff series I ever seen for a winning team. He was 5 for 25, somehow hitting .200. His OBP was .231, and he slugged .280 for an anorexic .511 OPS. Coco Crisp also had a disappointing series at the plate, but at least Coco fields his position, and fields it well. Lugo made what could have been a gigantic error in a 3-2 game last night, then he had that double clutch that prevented a double play being turned. He looks horrible.

The World Series begins on Wednesday at Fenway Park. Josh Beckett goes against lefty Jeff Francis. These are two of the hottest pitchers in baseball right now. It should be a hell of a game and a hell of a Series.

THESE ARE NOT THE 2004 RED SOX

The Red Sox face elimination tonight in their first must win game of the season. If victorious, they will face elimination again on Saturday. They need to win three straight games against Cleveland in order to continue the season.

In 2004, the Red Sox were down 3-0 against the Yankees. In Game 4, the Red Sox staged a 9th inning rally and eventually won the game in 12 innings. Game 5 required an 8th inning rally and a 14 inning effort. Games 6 and 7 were slightly easier, and the rest is history.

Listening to Boston sports radio, the 2004 team was alluded to at a rate of about once every 100 seconds. “In ‘04, we came back against New York.” “We were down 3-0 to the Yankees and still won.” “Tell Cleveland to ask Torre and the Yanks about what happened in 2004.” And so on.

There are two major problems with comparing the peril of the 2007 Sox with the near doom of the ‘04 club. These Red Sox are not the same as those Red Sox. And these Indians are not the same as those Yankees.

The four consecutive games won by the Sox in ‘04 were started by Derek Lowe, Pedro Martinez, Curt Schilling, and Derek Lowe again. The three games the Red Sox need to win this year will be started by Josh Beckett, Curt Schilling (3 years older than in ‘04, of course), and Daisuke Matsuzaka. The ‘04 Sox had two Aces in the hole, the ‘07 Sox have an Ace, an aging Jack, and a wild card.

The bullpen work in ‘04 was handled by Mike Timlin (4.1 IP in those last 4 games), Keith Foulke (5 IP), Allan Embree (3 IP), Bronson Arroyo (2 IP), Pedro Martinez (1 IP), and Tim Wakefield (3 IP). That bullpen was very deep. Mike Myers got the tough lefties, and Curtis Leskanic had 1.1 innings of work in Game 4 to get the win.

The bullpen for the ‘07 Sox is strong up front with Jonathan Papelbon (37 Saves, 1.85 ERA), Hideki Okajima (2.22 ERA), and a suddenly resurgent Mike Timlin (3.1 IP this series with 1 hit and no walks allowed). But after that, things get messy. Manny Delcarmen has allowed 3 runs in 1.2 innings. Jon Lester has yielded 2 in 3.2 innings. Javier Lopez gave up 4 in a single inning. Eric Gagne shall never again pitch in a Red Sox uniform. Papelbon, Okajima, and Timlin have combined for 8.1 scoreless innings in this series, but unlike in ‘04, there is a steep drop in performance as one goes down the list of bullpen pitchers.

The 2004 Red Sox had a complete lineup from 1 to 9. Johnny Damon led off, followed by Orlando Cabrera. Then came the big bats of David Ortiz, and Manny Ramirez. Kevin Millar, Trot Nixon, Jason Varitek, Bill Mueller, and Mark Bellhorn rounded out the lineup, a lineup which scored 949 runs in the regular season (5.9 per game) and 90 runs in the post-season (an astonishing 6.4 runs per game).

The 2007 Red Sox lineup is nowhere near as complete as the ‘04 club’s. The leadoff spot has been passed from Coco Crisp to Julio Lugo to Kevin Youkilis to JD Drew to Jacoby Ellsbury finally to Dustin Pedroia (and perhaps back to Ellsbury). Whereas the 2004 Sox had some hitters at the bottom of the order to continue big innings, make pitchers work harder, put up a few extra runs, and turn over the lineup; the 2007 team has four holes in Drew, Jason Varitek, Crisp, and Lugo, all of whom hit .270 or below this year. The Four Horsemen of the Pop Out have combined to go 12 for 60 (.200) this series. The Red Sox scored 867 runs this season (5.4 per game), and have scored 40 runs in the post-season (5.7 per game). However, 19 of those 40 runs came in two games. In the other 5 games, they’ve averaged 4.2 runs per game.

In the 2004 ALCS, the bottom of the order made major contributions. In the 9th inning rally of Game 4, Kevin Millar (hitting 7th that night) led off the inning by drawing a walk from Rivera. After pinch runner Dave Roberts stole 2nd, Bill Mueller (the 8 hitter) drove him in with a single. In Game 5, Jason Varitek (hitting 7th) knocked in the tying run in the 8th inning with a Sac-Fly. In Game 6, the big hit was by 9th hitting Mark Bellhorn, whose 3 run shot provided the Red Sox with what turned out to be the game winning runs. In Game 7, Damon knocked in 6 runs with 2 homeruns. Four of the men he knocked in were from the bottom of the lineup.

The 2004 Red Sox had Derek Lowe, Curt Schilling, Pedro Martinez, Keith Foulke, Mike Timlin, Allan Embree, Tim Wakefield (in the pen), Bronson Arroyo, Mike Myers, and a strong bottom half of the lineup to fall back on. The 2007 Red Sox have Josh Beckett, a 40 year old Curt Schilling, and a very lost Daisuke Matsuzaka. When and if these guys fail to go enough innings, the likes of Manny Delcarmen and Javier Lopez come into pivotal situations with the game on the line. And the bottom of the order is an easy 1.1 innings for any pitcher to navigate through.

The 2007 Indians are not the 2004 Yankees. In Game 5, the Indians will have CC Sabathia on the mound. If there is a Game 6, it will be Fausto Carmona. Neither one looked sharp in Games 1 and 2, but both had amazing years. Combined they are one of the best 1-2 punches in baseball.

In Game 4 of the ‘04 LCS, the Yankees started the ancient Orlando Hernandez. In Game 5, it was Mister Mediocrity: Mike Mussina. The Game 6 starter was Jon Lieber. Kevin Brown started Game 7. I’ll take Sabathia-Carmona-Wetbrook-Byrd over the Yankees’ foursome any day of the week.

The ‘04 Yankees also lacked a strong middle-relief. Tom Gordon and Tanyan Sturtze set-up Rivera, but then there was the likes of Paul Quantrill (4.72 ERA in ’04) in the middle. Quantrill got the loss in Game 4. Esteban Loaiza (5.70 ERA in ’04) was the loser of Game 5. Javier Vasquez (4.91 ERA as a starter in ‘04) allowed 3 inherited runners to score in Game 7. He also allowed 3 more runs of his own, which let the Red Sox pull further away from the Yankees.

The Indians’ bullpen has Borowski at the end. Borowski has the highest ERA in the pen. But apart from him and Tom Mastny, every other bullpen pitcher had an ERA below 3.00 this year. Aaron Fultz was at 2.92, Jensen Lewis was at 2.15, Rafael Perez was at 1.78, and Rafael Betancourt had a 1.47 ERA and a WHIP of 0.76. Betancourt, Perez, Lewis, and Fultz, along with Borowski; spell much more trouble for the Red Sox than Paul Quantrill or Esteban Loaiza did.

What the 2004 Red Sox did was impressive. Maybe I’m just being pessimistic, but I don’t think the 2007 Sox can semi-repeat what that team did in ‘04. That team was very special. They were also very good from top to bottom. Moreover, the 2007 Indians are much harder to beat than the 2004 Yankees. I will be much more impressed with this year’s team than the 2004 team if they come from behind and win this series.

Even if the Sox pull it out, the Rockies aren’t going to lose a single game until 2012.

HOW BOUT THEM PATRIOTS?

The Patriots hadn't played a team with a winning record until yesterday. It was only the 5th time in NFL history that undefeated teams played each other in week 5 or later.

The Patriots have now outscored their opponents by 138 points this season (23 points per game). To put that in perspective, in their 21 game win streak in '03 and '04, the Pats outscored opponents by 190 points (9 points per game). These are not your older brother's Patriots.

Yesterday's victory was much closer than the 48-27 score would suggest. The Pats scored a garbage time touchdown. This wasn't running up the score. This was a rushing TD by Kyle Eckel, and was essentially a reward for the Naval Academy graduate for busting his ass in practice week in and week out. See, Coach Belichick was indeed programmed with a heart.

The Cowboys were the only team to have a 2nd half lead over the Patriots so far this season. They're also the first team to put up more than 20 points. They're also one of the few teams to force a turnover from Tom Brady.

After the game, Terrell Owens said "The game could have gone either way." Tony Romo said "It wouldv'e been interesting had there not been a holding call on that 4th and 1 play" referring to an apparent 4th down conversion pulled back because of a penalty, which forced Dallas to punt.

The Cowboys were penalized 12 times for 98 yards. However, the refs did not seem to have it in for Dallas. Most of these calls were procedure penalties before the snap. Dallas was offsides three times, started falsely twice, and had an illegal shift penalty.

Neither team played their best possible game. Maybe it was all the mid-week hype. Maybe, for Dallas, it was their emotional trip to Buffalo and a short week. Maybe, for the Pats, it was playing a great team on the road for the first time this year.

Dallas was penalized incessantly, this coming after an offensively impotent 1st quarter. The Cowboys did not get a 1st down until 14:39 had elapsed in the game.

The Patriots tackled sloppily. There was no better example of that than Marion Barber's safari through the end zone, being wrapped up by four different Patriots, none of whom could complete their tackles and bring Barber down for a safety.

The Pats also hurt themselves with penalties. On defense they seemed slow at times. On TO's TD in the 2nd quarter, Samuel and Wilson ran into each other. On special teams, they allowed a big return. Then there was that sack and fumble which kept Dallas in the game early on. Had Brady held onto the ball and the Pats score on that drive, the game would have been close to over.

Tom Brady was the star of the game with 388 yards, and a career high 5 TDs. It would have been 6 touchdowns (a new franchise record) had the officials not called a bogus pushing off penalty on Moss. Brady also ran for two 1st downs.

An unsung hero of this game was Kevin Faulk, who replaced the injured Sammy Morris, who replaced the injured Laurence Maroney. Faulk had 13 carries for 50 yards (3.8 YPC) and also caught 3 passes for 24 yards.

The Patriots won in Dallas for the first time ever. Dallas is not an easy place to play for any visiting team, especially with the Cowboys playing so well this year. This is the most impressive win of the young season for the Patriots.

The Pats stay on the road next week, going down to Miami to face the 0-6 Dolphins. This game has "TRAP" written all over it, and Miami has always been a tough place for us to play in.

BOSTON VS. NEW YORK

The title isn't a mistake, I'm well aware of the fact that we're playing Cleveland in the ALCS. This article, however, is a comparison of the sports in Boston and the sports in New York.

Ladies and gentlemen, Boston is on top of New York across the board. New York sports suck compared to us.

Let's start with baseball. The Yankees may have won the season series against us 10-8, and they may have come from 14 games behind to make the divisional race exciting, and they came back from a crappy start to win the Wild Card. But they lost to the Indians in the LDS. Despite spending over $1 billion since 2000, the Yankees haven't won the World Series in this century.

We all know by now that the Yankees were eliminated last night by Cleveland. We also know that the NY Mets suffered one of the most embarrassing collapses in regular season history. With the Red Sox winning the AL East, and advancing to the ALCS, Boston baseball is doing much better than New York baseball.

Let's move on to football. The NY Giants are actually doing pretty well, with a 3-2 record. It's still very early in the season to be making any judgments, except for maybe one: the Jets suck. Mangini's squad is 1-4, and it isn't because people are videotaping their signals. The Jets are so pathetic that their fans cheered Chad Pennington getting injured.

Meanwhile, the Patriots are one of three 5-0 teams in the NFL. They've scored 182 points (most in the NFL) which is 36.4 points per game. They've also allowed the 6th fewest points (4 of the 5 teams ahead of them have only played 4 games). So far, the Pats have outscored their opponents by 117 points, or 23.4 per game. Again, it's still early, and the schedule gets much tougher from here on out, but as of right now the Pats are viewed as the #1 team in the NFL. But even though it's early, New England already has at least a 4 game lead on every team in the AFC East.

The Jets and Giants have a combined record of 4-6. Even together, they don't match the Patriots' win total. Boston is definitely ahead of New York in football.

The basketball season hasn't started yet, but let's just look at what the Knicks and Celtics did in the off-season. The Celtics acquired two studs in KG and Ray Allen. The Knicks were busy dealing with sexual harassment suits. Advantage: Boston.

In hockey, the Bruins suck. The Rangers are good, and if you want to throw in the Devils and Islanders, they're good too. Advantage: New York. But it's hockey, c'mon.

How about college football? Neither Boston or New York are hotbeds of college sports. But Boston has a D-IA team within its city limits. New York doesn't, but there is a team that became so popular last year that the Empire State Building was lit up in its school colors. Rutgers became New York's team last season. Probably not all New Yorkers, but what else do they have? Army? Syracuse? Maybe UConn?

Anyway, Rutgers sucked. After rising to #10 in the country due to crushing Buffalo, Navy, and mighty Norfolk State, Rutgers has lost 2 in a row and dropped from the rankings. Boston College, on the other hand, is 6-0 for the first time since 1942. BC has had some cupcakes on their schedule, but they did go down to Atlanta and beat Georgia Tech. The Eagles are ranked 4th in the nation and have the inside track to winning the ACC Atlantic Division. Advantage: Boston.

Oh yeah, the Revolution are also ahead of NY/NJ in Major League Soccer standings.

So the only sport in which the New York metro area has a clear advantage over Boston is hockey. In baseball, NFL football, basketball, college football, and even soccer, it is all Boston.

New York sucks.