Bruins Bully Flyers

On Saturday afternoon in Philadelphia, the Bruins looked like a rested team that had been playing reasonably well. The Flyers looked like they just wanted to lose and go home. As spiritless as the Flyers played, I think an AHL team could have beaten them.

The Bruins took advantage of that, and never let themselves turn on the cruise control and coast to the end of the game. They continued to push and continued to score.

Zdeno Chara and Jarome Iginla each scored two goals. Chara's 10th and 11th goals of the season both came on the power play. If Chara continues to excel offensively, he might win the trophy for best defensive player in the NHL. Which speaks volumes about how the Norris Trophy is determined.

Iginla scores goals in bursts. Lots of the Bruins do. The B's now have 8 players with 10+ goals. This type of spread-out productivity can be an advantage, it can also be a weakness. If enough players are in a cold stretch, the team falls into a funk and leans heavily on Rask and the defensemen. This happened a few weeks ago. It also happened in the Stanley Cup Finals.

The Bruins also spread out their fights. Eleven Bruins have dropped the gloves this season.

One negative to take from this game is that the penalty kill allowed another goal. Since Dennis Seidenberg's loss the Bruins have killed 30 of 43 power plays, an abysmal 69.8%. Before Seidenberg's injury the B's had killed 86.9% of their penalties. The Bruins' PK has dropped to 14th in the NHL.

I'd like the Bruins to get a penalty killing defenseman. I'm not worried about "puck-moving" or "minute-eating," I want a guy who can play the penalty kill. That's the only requirement. The Bruins CANNOT win a Stanley Cup without a strong penalty kill.

The Bruins are on Long Island tonight to face the Islanders. The Islanders are third to last in the Eastern Conference but have beaten the B's twice this season.

Photo Credit:
Chris Szagola/Associated Press

Bill Belichick vs. Wes Welker Continues After Game, a.k.a. PickGate

Did Wes Welker set a pick on Aqib Talib? Clearly. Was it intent to injure? Only Welker knows that. Was it a targeted hit on Talib? Probably.

Bill Belichick seems to think so. And I'm inclined to agree. I know by agreeing with Belichick, that somehow invalidates my opinions. The cool thing to do is to disagree with him, and to side with Wes Welker. That's what people do when someone stands up to Belichick the bully. The media, the fans, they all side with the poor David of a player standing up to the Goliath of Patriot Management. Welker is like Bob Cratchit standing up to Scrooge, or the Ewoks from Return of the Jedi fighting against the Empire and Darth Belichick.

Welker's play was dirty. Maybe not an explicit intent to injure, but certainly an intent to hurt. I do think Belichick used some hyperbole in his remarks, making his comments sound like sour grapes. I've seen dirtier hits from defensive backs and receivers. Some of them wearing a Patriots uniform.

What makes me think Welker's actions were intentionally dirty is the timing, the players involved, and the potential benefits of hindering/hurting/injuring Talib. Not necessarily knocking him out of the game, but hitting him around enough so that he was less effective. The game-ending injury was a bonus for the Broncos.

The Broncos were held to 3 points in the 1st quarter (only the 19th time in 69 quarters of play that the Broncos failed to score a TD). Part of that was because Talib was covering Demariyus Thomas. Thomas had 1 catch for 29 yards in the 1st quarter. Once Talib was removed, Thomas exploded for 6 catches, 105 yards, and a TD. Without Talib, the Pats' coverage on other receivers also struggled, as everyone was forced to shift assignments.

It's something Welker witnessed first hand in last year's AFC Championship game against Baltimore. Talib left that game with a thigh injury. Anquan Boldin, whom Talib had been covering, took advantage of Talib's absence and scored 2 touchdowns. Meanwhile the rest of the Patriots' secondary struggled with their adjusted responsibilities. Talib's presence allows Dennard and Arrington to cover easier assignments. It also allows the safeties to give them more help.

Taking Talib off the chess board (or making him less mobile on it) would make things easier for all of Denver's offensive pieces to get open. Welker knew that.

I'm not saying Welker meant to injure Talib. But how often did we see him run into defensive backs like that while he was here? It didn't seem accidental. Maybe it was a mistimed block, which seems odd after the refs flagged New England for setting a pick.

Which is more likely, that Welker was setting an early block or that he saw Talib and saw an opportunity to make a hit on the Patriots' most important defensive player?

In hockey if a player hits someone away from the play like that, we assume there is an intention. If someone took a similar run at Zdeno Chara in a playoff game, for instance, everyone would know that it was deliberate and targeted. Especially if the team that took him out was struggling to score. So what was Welker's intention? To block? To send a message? To make an impact on a key part of the opposing defense which had done well to contain your high-powered offense?

Which is most likely?

Welker had motive: his team had been struggling to put up points and their best receiver wasn't much of a factor.

He had the opportunity as crossing plays are a big part of Denver's offense.

And he knew what losing Talib would do to the Pats' defense after seeing it firsthand against the Ravens last season and seeing how well Talib did against Thomas in the regular season (4 catches, 41 yards).

The most important defensive player was injured by an ex-teammate running into him away from the play. That's suspicious at the very least. It's probably intentional, and likely dirty. I think Belichick was a bit over the top in his analysis of the play. Then again, I'd be pissed too.

I don't think Welker should be suspended or fined or hated by Patriots fans for this. It was a physical play. He went after a key player on the opposing team. We've praised that type of play from the Patriots for years and criticized the lack of it when it's not there. Marginal dirtiness is something the Patriots are known for.

However, it is time to dismiss the childish fairy tale notion that Wes Welker represents the forces of Good fighting against Evil. It's time for media and fans to stop "feeling good" for Welker's success with the Broncos. He's a person, he's a football player, and he did something that was marginally dirty on Sunday. He injured the most important defensive player on the hometown team. Sorry, but that doesn't jive with the narrative that he's the good David fighting against the evil Goliath. He didn't use a slingshot to take down the Patriots, he used a dirty play.

Leave Richard Sherman Alone

Immediately after this frightening interview, Richard Sherman became the center of the football world. But I don't think what he said was out of line. How he said it was shocking. I bet Erin Andrews wishes she could go back to interviewing Koji Uehara's son. Sherman was hyped up, in the moment. That whole team rails adderall anyway so we shouldn't be surprised when one of their most energetic players has a bit too much energy.

Sherman talked trash about his opponent. So what. Wasn't that what we were primed for in this game? "These teams hate each other." We heard that all week. Sherman expressed the hate we'd been told to expect, then he gets criticized for it?

He didn't do or say anything violent, anything inappropriate, anything obscene. And when he had calmed down later his interviews were heavy helpings of the same flavorless porridge we get from everyone else.

I suppose what he said was technically "classless," since it wasn't classy. But if we go out and look for classless things in pro sports, we'll be very busy. Sherman isn't any more classless than most athletes. What he did was bring his true personality to a segment of sports coverage we've been conditioned to expect polished and polite responses. Thank teammates, thank coaches, option to thank family and/or God, praise opponent, then for some reason say "thank you" to the interviewer. Sherman was himself for an interview. Who cares?

The outcry in response to Sherman's "classlessness" ironically verged on being more classless and inappropriate. Justin Verlander, who plays baseball, which is not football, Tweeted this...

So Russell is a class act! Sherman on the other hand.... If he played baseball would get a high and tight fastball.
— Justin Verlander (@JustinVerlander) January 20, 2014

Is that tweet considered classy or classless? I'm not a member of the Classless Police, so please tell me.

So this baseball player is suggesting that if an NFL defensive back were to play baseball, he'd be taught a lesson. Okay, Justin. I respect Verlander as a pitcher, as an athlete, and for hooking up with Kate Upton. But baseball players shouldn't be touting the physicality of their sport to football players.

Maybe I find all this Sherman backlash to be amusing and trivial because I'm a Patriots fan. I've heard my favorite athletes and coach called "classless" countless times. The word carries little weight with me. And if you are a Patriots fan and you have a problem with Sherman being "classless," remember that in 2006 the Patriots celebrated a playoff win over San Diego by dancing on the Chargers' logo, and we all ripped LaDainian Tomlinson for whining about classiness and classlessness. And in the Patriots-Eagles Super Bowl Mike Vrabel flapped his arms like the Eagles after scoring a touchdown. It's an emotional game.

So don't be a hypocrite. Don't hate Sherman because he was emotional and in the moment. I thought he acted like a bit of a clown. And a good clown is an entertaining one. But also kind of scary. And Sherman pulled that off Sunday night.

Patriots' Season Ends in Denver

Pressure. The game of football is about pressure. You pressure an opponent, they pressure you, and the clock pressures everyone. To win you must put pressure on an opponent and play well under pressure.

On Sunday the Patriots failed to put any significant pressure on Peyton Manning. For all the talk about Manning struggling in pressure situations, he never found himself in one. The defense rarely pressured him in the pocket, his receivers weren't pressured (especially once Aqib Talib left the game), and the Patriots offense didn't pressure him to put up points.

The Pats gave up 2 touchdowns and 4 field goals. That's not bad against the Broncos. That was the third fewest points they've scored this season. The Pats defense didn't allow a huge number of points but they allowed yardage and possession time. They allowed almost 0.3 miles of offense. And they couldn't make a big third down stop.

The offensive side of the ball was an even bigger letdown. Before Denver went to softer coverage in the 4th quarter, Brady threw only a handful of good passes. He overthrew Julian Edelman on what could have been a touchdown. He missed Austin Collie just before halftime on what would have been a huge gain. What happens in this game if these two plays are made?

The plays were there. The Patriots didn't make them. In the 2nd quarter on 3rd and 9, Manning threw a duck into double coverage. And if Kyle Arrington had turned around to play the ball he probably would have intercepted it. At the very least he would have broken the play up and ended the drive. Instead it was caught by Welker for a first down. The Broncos went on to score a touchdown on that drive.

While the Patriots failed to make big plays, the Broncos succeeded. On the same drive that Arrington could have had an interception, Knowshon Moreno gained 28 yards on a 3rd and 10 draw. The Broncos sacked Brady on a pivotal 3rd and 8 play the next drive, and later in the game on a 4th and 2 attempt. Last week I wrote about the timing of big plays the Patriots made against the Colts. This week the Broncos had excellent timing against the Pats.

Tom Brady had an awful game. Maybe he has an injured hand. Maybe he has the flu. Maybe he just had a bad day. Whatever the cause, the effect was a hole dug too deeply to get out of. The defense could have done better, maybe gotten off the field on a few 3rd downs, but I think the blame for this loss lies mostly with the offense. Three points in three quarters? The Pats only scored when Denver's defense eased up.

To be fair to Brady he didn't have much to work with. With a struggling running game the offense looked shabby, like the Patriots had picked people from the stands to play. Shane Vereen was the second most targeted receiver. Danny Amendola did nothing, and had a big fat drop. You're targeting Matthew Slater and Matthew Mulligan. And when receivers did beat coverage, Brady either missed them or he was sacked.

It was an anticlimactic end to what was an exciting season. I'm not as miserable as most fans are. I enjoyed the ride, not knowing where or when it would end. I didn't set my expectations high for this team. I didn't set any expectations. I had hopes and I had doubts. The Patriots did better than my most pessimistic doubts and didn't do as well as my highest hopes.

The one thing I'm disappointed in is that the Patriots didn't go out with their best fight. They went out with a fizzle, not a bang. I think there were some missed opportunities early in this game. I think the defense could have been a bit more disguised. I would have liked to see some sellout blitzes. You couldn't take out all 4 of Manning's weapons, so focus on attacking Manning. Take a risk. What's the worse that can happen? You get burnt for a touchdown, but at least the drive is short.

The off-season should be interesting. So will next season, Pats fans, so cheer up.

Photo Credit:
AP Photo/Joe Mahoney

Patriots-Broncos Drinking Game: AFC Championship Edition

It's almost here. Patriots vs. Broncos. Manning vs. Brady. Belichick vs. Welker. The time for talk has ended. Now it's time for two teams to play football. And for millions of people to heavily drink responsibly. Here's a drinking game to play while enjoying the AFC Championship Game.

Anytime a commentator says...
"Brady" = take 1 drink from a beer
"Manning" = 1 drink
"Legacy" = 1 drink
"History" = 1 drink
"The game" = 1 drink
"Meeting" = 1 drink
"Playoffs" = 1 drink
"Super Bowl" = 1 drink
"Eli" = drink for 10 seconds
"Mile High" = either take a shot of liquor or inhale a certain substance recently legalized in Colorado
"Home field" = 1 drink
"Blount" = either 1 drink or do the same as "Mile High"
"Mild" or "balmy" or any token weather remark = 1 drink
"Hoomanawanui" or any abbreviation = 1 drink the first time, 2 the second, and so on
"Logan" = 1 drink
Anything about the air being thin = hold your breath for 15 seconds then drink for 5 seconds


Anytime this is on screen...
Highlights from previous Brady/Manning games = drink for the entire highlight
Highlights of Brady/Patriots struggling in Denver = drink for the entire highlight
Clip or photo of Wes Welker in a Patriots jersey = 1 shot
Rodney Harrison = drink for 37 seconds
Ty Law = drink for 24 seconds
John Elway = drink for 7 seconds
Tim Tebow = finish your beer, take a shot
A rocky mountain = drink a can of Coors Light (it's water anyway)
Injured Patriot(s) on the sidelines, in a suite, on film = 1 drink per player
A graphic detailing injured Patriots = 1 drink per player
Vince Wilfork = 1 drink and eat 10 chicken wings
Rob Gronkowski (in person or on film) = finish your beer and Gronk-spike it
A Patriots fan in the stands = 1 drink per fan
A horse = half a beer
Peyton Manning in a suit and tie = 1 drink
Manning wearing something other than football jersey or suit and tie = 1 whole beer and 3 shots
Robert Kraft = 1 drink
Kraft talking to someone = drink the entire time he's talking
Jonathan Kraft watching the game with intensity, as if he were a coach = 1 drink


Anytime this happens...
Peyton Manning featured in a commercial = 1 drink
Manning says the name of a city (e.g. "Omaha") = 1 drink
Manning says the name of a state = 2 drinks
Manning says the name of a region or country = 5 drinks
Manning seems to change the play = 1 drink
Commentators praise Manning for play-calling = 1 drink
Manning makes a Manningface = 1 drink, and a free pass if you vomit
Tom Brady says "Alpha Milk" = 1 drink (bonus points for drinking a White Russian)
Brady points out the "Mike" = 1 drink (for bonus points, 6 drinks of Mike's Hard Lemonade)
You can actually hear Brady say anything before the snap = 1 drink
Somebody besides Manning or Brady makes a play, and the commentators continue to discuss Manning and/or Brady = 1 drink
Brady and/or Manning are compared with all-time greats = 1 drink
Brady throws to a tight-end = half a beer
That tight-end actually catches the pass = the other half of the beer
A commentator jokes or laughs about the complexity of Michael Hoomanawanui's name = 1 drink and 1 shot
Patriots run the ball = 1 drink
Patriots go play-action = 1 drink
Stevan Ridley runs the ball and doesn't fumble = 1 drink
Ridley fumbles = 1 shot
Patriots get into the Red Zone = 1 drink
Patriots score in the Red Zone = 1 drink for a field goal, a drink and a shot for a TD
50+ yard field goal attempt = 1 drink
Kickoff touchback = 1 drink
Kickoff return = drink for the entire return


So enjoy the game, enjoy the MLK Day hangover, and remember to get lubed up responsibly.

Bruins Beat Whalers... I Mean Stars

Did anyone else look at the TV during Thursday night's Bruins game, see the color of the Dallas Star jerseys, and just for a moment think that the B's were playing the Hartford Whalers?

The Stars would become my second favorite hockey team if they adopted Brass Bonanza as their anthem.

The Bruins really needed to get points from this game. Dallas has been mired in a tremendous slump. The Stars were 1-6 in January entering this game. The Bruins have also been slumping, though not as badly. They've only managed 6 points in their last 8 games. They have the Blackhawks and Kings after this, so leaving Texas with 2 points was a necessity.

It was good to see Chad Johnson (hockey) play solidly. The minimum standard of play from a backup is someone who doesn't put his team in position to lose. You want a backup who is decent enough to make winning possible. Johnson did his job Thursday night. I wouldn't mind seeing him a few more times until Tuukka Rask is as sharp as usual.

It was also good to see the Bruins' top forwards carry the load and score some goals. Krejci, Marchand, Lucic, and Bergeron all scored. Krejci, Lucic, and Bergeron all had assists. The B's even scored on the power play. And it was a forward (Lucic) who did it! Not Chara or Krug! Krug did have an assist on that goal, his team leading 13th power play point.

I have faith the Bruins will play their way out of this funk. But the penalty kill allowed yet another goal. And beating Dallas doesn't demonstrate that they're out of it, or even that they've started to play out of it. It's a 2-point grab when you're playing poorly. If they play well in their next games, then maybe they'll be playing their way back into a groove.

The Bruins play Sunday afternoon in Chicago on NBC. Which is a nice appetizer before the main course of the AFC Championship.

Photo Credit:
Tony Gutierrez/Associated Press

I'm Sick of Hearing About Legacies

What does this game mean for Tom Brady's legacy? Peyton Manning's? Bill Belichick's? Who needs to win a Super Bowl more this year?

Ugh...

I am so completely and utterly tired of hearing legacies discussed on sports radio and at work, and being bombarded with stories about the topic. It's trivial crap. People are speculating and conjecturating (I know that's not a word, it's a Johnnie Cochranism) about what a game to be played in the future will mean in the more distant future when people look back on the past, which is our present. That does not make sense.

Can't we just look ahead at this future game and suppose what might happen WITHIN the game itself? Can't we say the Patriots need to hit Wes Welker and put him off his game, then find a way to pressure Manning without blitzing? Can't we say that if the Broncos hold on to the ball and slow down the Pats' running game, they have a good chance of winning?

Nope! We have to philosophize about the larger meaning of the game. What does it all mean?

Which is funny because whoever wins, this game will add nothing to their "legacy" if they lose the Super Bowl.

We don't know what will happen in this game. Which is why I can't wait for it to be played. I'm anxious, nervous, excited, optimistic. I'm ready to be entertained, hopeful to be elated, prepared to be disappointed. I'm on the edge of my seat thinking about how I won't be able to sit down on Sunday.

The other reason I can't wait for this game to be played is so people will shut up about legacies. Although they won't. Because one of these QBs will go to the Super Bowl, which means 2 more weeks of legacy talk. Along with the whole "changing of the guard" theme as Brady or Manning faces Kaepernick or Wilson.

What happens on Sunday is still unknown to us, to everyone. So I'm tired of people who don't know what will happen on Sunday, arguing with each other about how those unknown events will be seen by future generations of fans. Who cares and how can you know? How can you even guess? It's like speculating about how a child who isn't even born yet will be seen by his/her future kids.

Just live in the now, people. Enjoy the exciting build up, have fun watching the game, and stop thinking about legacies.

Why I'm Still Happy the Bruins Traded Seguin

The Bruins are in Dallas, facing off against a former Bruin who left the town quietly, but has since made considerable noise in his new city. Tyler Seguin has scored 21 goals with an equal number of assists for the Stars. He's well on his way to breaking personal bests for goals in a season (29) and points (67), both set in 2011-12.

There's two arguments one can construct from Seguin's rebirth in Dallas:

1. The Bruins were wrong to trade him, because look how well he's doing. The Bruins let a talented player go.

2. The Bruins were right to trade him, because look how well he's doing. The Bruins got rid of a player who wasn't living up to his potential.

I agree more with Argument #2. The fact that Seguin is doing so well in Dallas proves that he wasn't playing up to his potential in Boston. You can argue that the B's perhaps gave up on him too early. Then again he had three seasons to get with the program here. His on-ice performance showed no improvement. Actually the opposite. Especially in the playoffs. And his off-ice priorities were, in a word, selfish.

That's why he's a Dallas Star and not a Boston Bruin.

He still has talent. No doubt about that. That's why he's doing so well in Dallas. That's why he scored 29 goals and 38 assists in 2011-12. Talent isn't an issue for him. He has the potential to score 30-40 goals and add 50+ assists with the right linemates.

The issue with Seguin was how he deployed that talent, and how he failed to take full advantage of it. Strike that. He CHOSE not to take full advantage of it. He didn't put in the effort to be a Boston Bruin, he lacked confidence playing outside his comfort zone (which the playoffs require you to do), and didn't show a willingness to acknowledge and address the aspects of his game that needed attention.

Regular season performance wasn't an issue for Seguin. Although in 2012-13 he took a slight step back in production. He went from 29 goals and 67 points to 16 goals and 32 assists in a lockout shortened season. That's a pace for 28 goals and 54 points.

Then there's the playoffs...

A friend of mine pointed out that he scored some crucial goals in 2011 against Tampa Bay. And that's true. He scored in Game 1 and twice in Game 2. He also had 2 assists in Game 2. A great start to his postseason career.

His playoff production since then and overall, well, there isn't really any playoff production to speak of. In 42 career postseason games, about half a season, he's scored 6 goals with 12 assists. His playoff goal production was half of what his regular season production was for the Bruins (a goal every 3.6 games in his regular season Bruins career, a goal every 7 games in his playoff career).

He's played in 7 series and only scored a goal in 3 of them. In 4 series, including 2 Stanley Cup Finals, he's failed to score.

And in his last 40 playoff games he's managed to score a mere 3 goals with 9 assists. Twelve points. In 40 games.

Then you look at his off-ice priorities. I don't mind athletes having a good time. But Seguin was compulsive about it. And he seemed to get worse year after year. Maybe only what we heard got worse. Either way it showed no sign of improving, which mirrors his on-ice performance. Seguin needed a security guard to keep him in his hotel room during the Stanley Cup Finals. If he were scoring a goal a night, I wouldn't mind if he went out and drank 20 beers then hooked up with an entire Northeastern sorority. He wasn't doing his job in the playoffs yet he still wanted to celebrate.

Before all that there was the lockout. Most NHLers who played in European leagues went there to stay sharp and earn some cash. Seguin went there to binge. He chose the team and league his buddies were playing in. There were reports of him trashing rooms. And I'm sure he had his share of fun.

And I wouldn't have cared about that if he had returned to the Bruins and scored 20 regular season goals then 9 or 10 more in the playoffs. He didn't.

Maybe he's got his act together in Dallas. Maybe being traded was a wakeup call (something he's had trouble with in the past). Maybe the Bruins cut ties too soon. Then again they got decent players in return. Reilly Smith has 15 goals and 18 assists, already more points than Seguin had last year (in about the same number of games), and only needs to score once in the playoffs to match Seguin's total last season.

Seguin seems comfortable in Dallas. His problem up here was that winning requires you to go outside your comfort zone. And instead of being willing to risk discomfort in the pursuit of being a better hockey player, he'd prefer to go drinking with his male-groupie pals and bang some broads.

Good for you, Tyler. And good riddance.