I'm sorry I haven't been more diligent about posting new material lately. What do you want from me? I've been more than a little disappointed by the recent run of success for the Boston teams that I hate. And the more I post to complain about them, the better they seem to do. It's just some sort of terrible nightmare, although admittedly of very minor proportions.

I have decided to take a new tack in dealing with the Celtics. Even though Ainge's panic moves seem, for the moment, to have worked out as well as could be expected, my distaste for the current regime still lingers from the Antoine situation. I also have serious qualms about jumping on a bandwagon, so I'm not rooting for the Cs. I have, after about 14 seconds of intense thought on the matter, decided to root against the Celtics a little less aggressively than I've rooted against the Pats, the Sox and BC.

Either way, it should be win win for me. If I am somehow bringing good karma to the Red Sox, Patriots and other teams/causes I root against, then maybe by taking a low key approach I might somehow reverse that trend. And if the Cs should stay healthy and stay selfless long enough to go deep into the playoffs, at least I won't have a seven month body of work to show how short-sighted and wrong I can be at my worst.

And so it appears that the Patriots are on the verge of another blowout victory. At this point, I have given up on watching the game. It is now to the point of turning my stomach to see them do what they're doing. Running up the score is not tremendously cool to begin with, but to go for it on fourth down inside the ten yard line when you're up by four touchdowns is just a bit too excessive.

I know I quote and refer to Jimmy Johnson's maxim that one ought to get better players if one has a problem with being blown out by one's opponents. And in the main I agree with the saying. The rest of the NFL teams had their chances to acquire the players who now make up this team. They also had their chances to get better players than the ones who can't stand up to the Patriots. So it's their fault that the Pats kick their asses, and kick them hard week in and week out as though they were General Sherman marching through Georgia.

But it's gone on long enough. Bill Belichick, and to a lesser extent his players, are emulating two of the more admired figures in the pantheon of dbags - the petulant child and the bully. Perhaps the NFL overreacted in their sanctions following the scandal in the Meadowlands. Maybe every single other owner, player, front office functionary and concession stand worker in the NFL failed miserably to do their moral duty and come to Bill Belichick's defense. After all, the man is the heart and soul not only of the NFL but of the American Republic as a whole. Just ask him, and if he's not too vexed by the weight of the world on his shoulders, he'll tell you.

Maybe it will be a sublime comeuppance should the Patriots march to 19-0 and net a top three pick in the upcoming NFL draft thanks to the 49ers finding new and different ways to get worse from week to week. Is that really the object of the exercise, or should it be? For five years now, I've had to sit and listen to every talking head even peripherally associated with the industry that is American professional football tell the world that the New England Patriots are the model for the way the game ought to be played. For five years we were told that the Patriots won with class and dignity, with an overall team concept and without the trappings of ego that seem to turn off so many fans.

Now, for the sake of avenging a slight in the form of an official overreaction to what was a moderately dirty deed, the Patriots have essentially taken that notion out back and put a bullet in its brain. There was nothing classy, dignified or admirable about the manner in which the Patriots defeated the Bills. Even worse, it's unsound business, or it will be after a certain point. I am a huge football fan, and I'm not watching the only football game on the air at the moment because it's not that entertaining to see a team be destroyed for 60 minutes of football.

I'm also tired of the whole get-up that Belichick rocks on the sidelines. Yeah, we get the point, it's the whole ironic commentary on the NFL deal with Reebok to provide coaches apparel and the foolish consistencies which are the hobgoblins of little minds. Unfortunately a fifty year old dude doesn't wear the shallow teen-aged rebellion particularly well.

I wonder if and/or when more people will start to feel that the Patriots have ceased doing the right thing for some time now. I know that there are Patriots fans who see this as payback for all those blissful years when the Patriots were so bad for so long and so often on the receiving end of lopsided scores. Maybe they're right. I just know I'm becoming less interested in watching this team play. And I'm a guy that has been known to make time to watch the Senior Bowl practice sessions.

As this season gets closer to the end, I have my own version of the perfect ending to this storybook season. I would like to see the Patriots go 16-0 in the regular season and then lose in the divisional round of the playoffs on the hallowed 13 month old field turf at Gillette Stadium. Perhaps a more conventional ending might have them make it all the way to the Super Bowl before they finally lost, but I like my scenario better. It would hurt Pats fans more, I think, if they lost out of the blue in their house right off that coveted first round bye.

If a few other wrinkles were added to the story line, such as a visiting player grabbing that ridiculous cut-off hoodie and pulling it over Belichick's head as though it were a hockey fight, that would put a smile on my face. I try, for the most part, not to condone violence in this space, but I am an imperfect man in many respects. I think it would be too much to ask to have some concerned citizen hurl a football into his groin to reenact the George C. Scott in Man Being Hit By Football bit from the Simpsons of yesteryear. But that would be damn funny also.

And so, Notre Dame finally won a home game. Yes, it was against Duke which just might be the worst team in the Bowl Subdivision series. But Robert Hughes looked very good. If they could ever sort out the abysmal play of the offensive line and the young backs can build on the strides they've made this season, perhaps James Aldridge and Robert Hughes can form a 1-2 punch in the backfield sort of like Cadillac Williams and Ronnie Brown at Auburn. But that's probably too optimistic an outlook to take.

I don't have too much more to say at this point, though I will be posting more material over the next couple of days. I'm going to see Springsteen tomorrow night, so I'm taking it easy tonight. I'll have a lot to say about his show, I'm sure.

In a recent comment about my last post, a reader took issue with my criticism of the Red Sox for failing to come back to win more than one game in their final at bat this season. His rationale was that the stat itself was not particularly useful. As he said most teams lose in that situation. Now, I tend to pay surprisingly little attention to what I say from one post to the next, but I'm pretty sure that I said that I expected the Sox to lose much more than they win when they trail after 8, but I could be wrong. Stranger things have happened, like America's prosecutor Fred Thompson turning out to have been a mole undermining his committee's case during the Watergate investigation.

I do, however, believe that it is a relevant stat. The playoffs are an entirely different dynamic than the regular season. Should the Red Sox encounter the Detroit Tigers in an opening round series, for instance, they will face a team with better starting pitching and a deeper offensive lineup. To beat a team that is as good as your squad, you need to be battle-tested. Beating the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, even with Wakefield on the mound doesn't make count.

When you consider the fact that the Red Sox have come back in their last at bat to win a game only once this season and that it was against the Baltimore Orioles and that the game in question was the catalyst for the epic losing streak that cost the manager his job, this Red Sox team ceases to impress. Let's not forget that the travesty in 2004 was built on late inning rallies, prevailing against the odds and Kevin Millar being the single dumbest human being to escape a Darwin award.This current edition of the Boston Red Sox has yet to prove that it has heart, guts, balls or any other anatomical feature that can stand in for constancy, courage or any of the other cardinal virtues in a half-assed metaphor. They just might want to do that before all of the chips are down.

Of course, I suspect that my reader is lashing out at me to exercise his angst that the Celtics have compensated for their lack of success by whoring out the image and likeness of Red Auerbach so that Adidas can throw his face on some special basketball shoes. I think that just clinched the Rookie of the Year and multiple MVP awards for Jeff Green. As though Red weren't suffering enough in his twilight years between Banner 17 gutting the team and adding cheerleaders, now they have to make his stay in the afterlife unpleasant?


But back to Red Sox fans. On Sunday, the guy who comes to me with his Red Sox info (my own personal answer to questions I've never asked) came into my home. Where I sleep. Where I come to play with my toys. And he was sickeningly full of that which makes the grass grow green. The Red Sox game was on, JD Drew was coming to the plate and he hit me with the buzz kill.

He got into the classic Red Sox fan argument position, thrust his chin forward as though he were capable of bringing the pain should the situation require it and said in his big boy voice that if I were to look at the numbers over the course of his career, JD Drew's stats were comparable with A Rod's. On some level, I imagine that they are comparable. In the same way that a kick in the groin is comparable to a steak dinner.

As we live and breathe, Alex Rodriguez is batting .314 with 28 HR and 80 RBI. JD Drew is breathing down his neck with a robust .261 batting average, an awe-inspiring 6 home runs and 33 RBI. I'm not a mathematical genius, but I don't think those statistics are comparable at all, except of course by our old friend the inequality.

Now, I imagine I would be irresponsible if I were to allow the fact that I just used a very small sample size to contrast the performance of two ten year veterans. So here you go, sticklers for statistical accuracy, go to Baseball Reference and tell me their career numbers are comparably in the good way. JD Drew has only just managed to hit more home runs in his entire career than A Rod hit as a member of the Texas Rangers. A Rod has batted in nearly three times as many runs as JD Drew managed to this point. The fact that A Rod has played 800 more games than Drew isn't enough to offset the fact that A Rod has 330 more career home runs than Drew and is only two years older.

Of course, this is a guy who maintains that Jim Rice was the most feared right handed hitter of his era. And he defends his position when one mentions Mike Schmidt by pointing out that Rice had a much higher batting average. Which is true, although it leaves out the fact that Schmidt played in a much bigger ball park against the National League (which was the stronger league at the time) and with a dead spot in the lineup where the pitcher batted. And it also leaves out the fact that Schmidt his 160 more home runs than Rice did in 400 more games. All while playing a much more demanding defensive position and winning Gold Gloves. Jim Rice might belong in a Hall of Fame, but it just isn't the one in Cooperstown.

What bothers me most about my friend tormenting me with his Red Sox absurdities is that he lacks a sense of honesty and even worse irony where the local nine are concerned. JD Drew's numbers might compare favorably with A Rod's when you throw in all kind and manner of qualifiers and modifiers to adjust for the fact that JD Drew has only a slightly smaller chance of becoming the next pope than he does of finishing a season. But qualifying and modifying stats undercuts the argument in the first place. It's like saying that if grasshoppers were armed with automatic weapons, they wouldn't be on the bird's dinner menu.

As for the sense of irony, I seem to remember A Rod as the villain in the il-conceived farce that is Red Sox Nation. I am constantly being told that A Rod is the embodiment of all that is wrong in baseball today and when so inclined, he eats unattended children for a light snack. But it's OK to pay a right fielder $14 million to hit .260 with 6 home runs and 33 RBI because his numbers can be compared to A Rod's? Maybe I'm missing the facility for intellectual dishonesty and mental gymnastics that enables a man to be a Red Sox fan, but I just can't buy it.

Before I sign off, I have to weigh in on the Boston Pops performance this evening. I have a bachelor party, a golf game and a wedding in the next three days, so I don't know when I'll get another chance to post. And if I do get the chance to post in that time, I'm sure that I will be past the point where I can blog coherently. So it's now or never.

I must say, I was colossally disappointed with the concert. From the get-go, I didn't see the point of the whole set up. Why John Cougar Mellencamp? I am not one of the Bill Simmons disciples who found the Sports Guy's cute little epigrams mocking Our Country particularly piquant. I hate the song, but no more or less than any other song appearing in an overexposed commercial campaign. But why is he coming back?

I try to keep my political views distinct from my aesthetic judgements. I don't care that John Cougar Mellencamp has become a darling of the anti-war movement. That doesn't change the inherent merits (or utter lack-thereof) of his music. Mellencamp was a very inferior Midwestern version of Bruce Springsteen, in much the same way as Jon Bon Jovi is a very, very inferior New Jersey knock-off of the Boss. His music was (and is) blue collar, but generic, cliched and without the thinking-man rebel's edge one can find Born to Run, Darkness on the Edge of Town, the River and the rest of Springsteen's music. In short, John Cougar is basically Bill Simmons to Bruce Springsteen's F. Scott Fitzgerald.

But enough on John Cougar. During the fireworks display, there were various recordings played over the loudspeaker system. Rest assured, I am scandalized with that decision on two levels. First, nobody went to the Esplanade or turned their TVs on to see some tool's i-Pod. The damn Boston Pops could have learned/rehearsed 3-4 more songs (or is an orchestra of that eminence confined to using selection to refer to the material they play?), after all it's not like this was an impromptu gig. The Fourth of July happens every year. Right in the same spot on the calendar too, not like Labor Day which skulks its way through that first week of September.

In addition to being scandalized by the fact that the Pops let recorded music be played at their signature concert, I was also deeply disappointed by some of their choices. Kenny Chesney was on the play list, and while he might be elevated in the esteem of New Englanders because he rocks a Red Sox hat from time to time, it doesn't change the fact that his music is shallow and childish even for a country singer. I could have done without the Sesame Street theme as well, but such is life.

Far worse, in the collection of "patriotic" music played throughout the program, the Battle Hymn of the Republic didn't make the cut. Of course very few songs manage to offend the real core of America the way that song does. For Southerners and racists, it calls to mind places like Antietam, Gettysburg, Shiloh, Vicksburg and Appomattox, and God forbid we hurt their feelings. And then the overt religious sentiments of the song offend Massachusetts residents who wear their atheism as a badge of honor. But we did have 3, maybe 4 different George M. Cohan selections. Kind of warms the cockles, doesn't it?

And finally, I found myself wondering what a British soldier might have felt seeing the Middlesex Volunteers march onto the stage at the beginning of the festivities. I'm betting that a member of the Queen's Own Closet Case Grenadiers must wonder why his great-great-great-grandfather lit out running so fast from a rabble like that in Concord. And in case you're wondering, I am, in fact, aware that John Cougar Mellencamp has dropped the Cougar from his stage name, but I'm not going to let him get away with that.

All that, and I didn't even take the CHB to task for acting like he's broken a story on Julio Lugo's offensive struggles.

I find myself wondering whether Pat Riley wants to win basketball games. Things looked bleak for Miami when Shaq went to the bench with his fifth foul at the 8:35 mark of the 4th quarter. They certainly did not look like they were going to get a whole lot better when D Wade joined him after he was called for his fifth with 8:26 to play. One would have thought that things were going to fall apart for the Heat at that point.

Unfortunately for Scott Skiles and the Bulls, their road to victory was made considerably more difficult by one man. It was Antoine Walker, and the Bulls had no answer for him, as he led the Heat back to within two points with 5:17 to go in the game. Thankfully for Bulls fans, Pat Riley decided that it was time to bring Shaq and D Wade in off the bench at that point. Here is the full game play-by-play, in case you're interested.

I realize that Wade and Shaq absolutely must be on the floor at crunch time. I was looking forward to their return. I just don't think Antoine needed to go to the bench with his twenty when Shaq and Wade had been on the bench for three minutes of game play and three of the Heat (Eddie Jones, Udonis Haslem and Jason Williams) who also played important minutes had managed to combine to score fewer points than Antoine.

By the way, I would pay money to see Eddie Jones do Shakespeare before I paid money to see him play basketball at this point. I understand that Pat Riley has a man-crush on him, but enough is enough. He was done like dinner in the last days of the Clinton administration. Maybe Antoine would have scored more consistently in the regular season if he'd played more minutes. Just a thought. I am also working on the theory that he might have scored more consistently had I watched more of his games. But there was work to be done on the Bears bandwagon, and injuries from which to recover after each time it piled up into a trestle.

Chicago promptly went on a quick 5-0 run, until Shaq picked up his 6th, and Toine returned. Antoine didn't score another point, but finished with 20. His 3 point shooting on the day was pretty good, and he was perfect from the freethrow line for a change. And I would say that his defense did not suck quite as much as the other Miami players' effort on that end of the floor.

Antoine, on the off chance that some one in your entourage reads this and can pass it along, please stop playing hard. You have no right to remind Celtic fans that you were the last person that really wanted to win in a Celtic uniform. Stop showing up Danny Ainge. He does the best he can, and it's not his fault that he cannot run a basketball team. Stop making Bill Simmons look bad for saying that you're moving like Fred Sanford these days. It's not his fault he's a tool, and people seem to prefer his wife's writing to his. He and J Bug or Joe House or Fist Magnet will always have the time they routed Norv Turner from a $10 blackjack table.

And above all, stop playing hard because it encourages the lunatic fringe that wish Ainge had never traded you. Just think, on a day when the Red Sox played the Yankees, I watched the Miami Heat play a basketball game because I like Antoine Walker. If only we lived in a free country, then a grown-ass man could eat what he wanted and watch what he wanted and hope that Charles Barkley runs for President in peace.

You need to see this clip from the Detroit-Calgary game. I know I rarely talk about hockey in this space, and then it's usually college hockey, but this is strange. I am almost speechless. I've never seen a goalie get a game misconduct. I'm sure it's happened before, I just don't want to do the leg work since it's Saturday afternoon and googling hockey was pretty low on my to-do list for today.

It caught me by surprise because I haven't been following that series with much interest. I assumed that Detroit was up 3-1 based on the fact the fact that the score was 5-1 at the time of the incident and the Flames were that frustrated. I didn't realize the series was deadlocked at two wins apiece. There's still a game to play, that ought to be interesting.

I am going to watch the New Jersey game tomorrow afternoon, so I may have a thing or two to say about it. If there are any compelling moments, I may be doing some more writing on hockey as the playoffs progress. I do like the sport, it's just that I have no energy to hate the Bruins with so much devoted to hating the Red Sox and the Danny Ainge era of Celtic basketball.

Here is my conservative prediction for tonight's NASCAR race under the lights in Phoenix: a semi-literate moron will win. Of course since that cruelly insensitive epithet covers the entire spectrum of NASCAR drivers, I have a 100% chance of being right. And let me tell you, it feels good, for a change.

And it looks like the meek are going to inherit the earth today in Fenway, or at the very least a baseball victory. It's not every day that you can defeat a pitcher like Jeff Karstens. Red Sox Nation has a lot to hang its hat on today.

PS - There is a Springsteen reference somewhere in today's post. I wonder if you can spot it and tell me the song from which it came.

In the May 22, 1974 issue of Rolling Stone, Jon Landau famously wrote: "I saw rock and roll future and its name is Bruce Springsteen." We haven't seen the future of the NBA yet, but we will this weekend. It really doesn't matter, either, who ends up winning this year's NCAA championship. What does matter, for the future of the NBA, is that we'll see if Roy Hibbert can be the rival Greg Oden needs to save the NBA on Saturday.

Make no mistake about it. The NBA needs salvation desperately. Ratings peaked in 1998, and they show no signs of getting back to that level any time soon. There is even a great deal of consternation in some circles that Major League Baseball has scheduled a game between the Red Sox and the Yankees up against an opening round playoff basketball game. Can you imagine the NFL fearing to schedule a playoff game against another sport's regular season game?

Anybody who tells you that the NBA's ratings are falling because of the hip hop culture or mainstream white Americans turning away from it are full of sanctimony and not correct. At the end of the day, people want one thing, and one thing only from sports. It isn't cultural commentary or the world of yesteryear. People could care less about how long the player's shorts are, what kind of music they listen to or what they wear. They want to see good basketball and nothing more.

The ratings are falling because basketball is not being played the way it was intended by Dr. Naismith. Basketball is not being played the way the Russell era Celtics played it. Basketball is not being played the way the Showtime Lakers of the 1980s played it. And it's not really being played the way Jordan played it.

In a sense, it's Jordan's fault that the ratings are falling. And not because he retired and came back and retired again. The NBA Finals which enjoyed the highest rating of all time was the 1998 series which featured the Jordan Bulls against the Utah Jazz. Jordan won the series with the famous, iconic isolation play (where he may or may not have fouled Byron Russell). And since that play, that has become the core of most team's offense in crunch time.

Look at the end of the Laker game against the Warriors. Kobe Bryant dribbled and dribbled through the defense until he had an opening to take the winning shot. Yes, he made it and the Lakers won their fifth straight game. But that's not basketball. Maybe his teammates aren't very good. But a professional basketball player ought to be given a chance to make the last shot.

Who really wants to see four grown men who are extremely well paid stand around and watch one guy dribble through a crowd? That's not worth the price of admission. That's junior high basketball. Or worse, the one bigger kid playing on the playground with his little brother and his friends.

Oden can save the NBA because he'll give a team a dimension no team has had in a long time, not even Miami - a true center. Shaq doesn't really count any more, as age and his bulk have limited his minutes and his effectiveness over the last few years of his career. He can only play with full on intensity for a few minutes at a time. And Duncan, Garnett and the rest of the big men in the NBA these days seem more comfortable away from the basket than in the post, or they might just as well be sold for spare parts (Dampier, Djiop, Kendrick Perkins, et al.) as paid to play basketball.

Oden has a combination of size and athletic ability that is inordinately rare, even in professional basketball where inordinate size and athletic ability are the rule rather than the exception. He can control the glass on both ends of the court. He can run with the break, which is almost funny, since no NBA team can really run a break anymore.

But what he really needs is a rival. That's the one thing that kept Shaq from being the best center of all time. He never had to work day in and day out to hone his skills to beat that one opponent worth beating. Am I the only one who stops to wonder what Bill Russell would have been like without Wilt Chamberlain? Or Chamberlain without Russell? Even Kareem had Cowens and Walton and Willis Reed and Wes Unseld among others hanging around when he was young. The only guy on the horizon that can be that rival for Oden is Hibbert, as I see it. His offense needs a bit of work, but he is a very good defender.

A player like Oden will give a team a low post option that opponents must respect, he'll draw double teams which will open space on the floor for shooters. Not that that's necessarily a good thing, what with the fact that even "good" shooters seem to have difficulty hitting the floor upon falling out of bed two days out of three these days. At least, with any luck, that might bring an end to the 1 one 5 superstar suicide charge that is the NBA equivalent of the four minute offense from NFL endgames.

For his sake, and for selfish reasons, I hope Oden doesn't come to the Celtics. Since this ownership group has steadfastly refused to terminate Ainge's employment, Oden could prolong his tenure in Boston indefinitely. For obvious reasons I don't want that to happen. But it won't be good for Oden, either.

Let him go to a team that isn't crippled by salary cap woes. Let him play for a team that doesn't have Brian "The Great Brain" Scalabrine as it's fifth highest paid player. After all, won't drafting Oden cast aspersions on the $4.48 million due to be paid to Kendrick Perkins. And above all, let him go to a team that isn't crippled with a superstar who is a selfish, petulant boy emperor who can't play a team sport with a team.

In the immortal words of Detective John McLane: "If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Quit being part of the problem." Paul Pierce isn't part of the solution. He can't share the spotlight. He couldn't with Ricky Davis, he couldn't with Antoine Walker. How in the world could Paul Pierce, the face of the Celtics, share the spotlight with a projected savior of the franchise. Pierce may or may not be one of the brightest minds in professional basketball, I wouldn't know, but he has to see that if the franchise has to be saved, in a sense, it has to be him from whom the team must be saved.

But it's all academic if the game within the game between Oden and Hibbert doesn't deliver. Any one of a million things could go wrong, one or both could get into foul trouble. Oden could eat Hibbert alive (metaphorically speaking, I hope), or vice-versa, which is infinitely less likely than the former. Or God forbid, one or the other could get hurt.

If this game doesn't live up to the hype, I think the NBA is in trouble. Then the future of the league is in the hands of Kevin Durant and OJ Mayo. And will those players make a team better. And I don't just mean wins and losses. Because what will the difference of 10 or 12 wins to the Celtics mean for next season? Will it make them a playoff team? More importantly, will it make them a worthy playoff team?

Whatever flaws it had (and it had a few), that 2001-2002 Eastern Conference Finalist had an energy and a chemistry that made it fun to watch. I don't think I've ever enjoyed a sporting event more than I enjoyed that monster comeback against New Jersey. Now put Oden or Durant on this Celtics team and tell me they'd be capable of something like that. I don't see it. It might make them a lower seed in the first round, and maybe they could be dangerous. But since the NBA went to a seven game format in round one, miracles have been outlawed.

Let Oden or Durant go to a team that can build around them from jump street. Let the Celtics take Joakim Noah and sink with the spare parts. Get rid of Ainge. Sell the team to an ownership group that won't preside over a poorly managed but expensive tax dodge, but actually try to build a champion. FYI, no one trying to build a champion would sign Brian Scalabrine to any kind of deal.

PS - Durant ought to come out for economic reasons, but he's less NBA ready than Oden. He's way to skinny to survive the NBA right now. He'll be knocked around until he can bulk up to withstand the punishment. Staying in school would help, since college teams aren't allowed to turn basketball into rugby as often as NBA teams do it. I think he's two years away at least from really contributing, maybe three if he has the misfortune to get hurt.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is an outrage being perpetrated as we speak. According to Bill Simmons, anonymous posters and bloggers are slandering famous people all over the internet. He has a long history of problems with blogs and bloggers, just look at this. I have seen a negative mention of my blog, and it upset me. I thought about posting my own response on the site, then I had a few beers, then I had a few more and eventually I got too lazy to do it. Then I got too drunk to do it, eventually I woke up hung over in a few hours and didn't really feel like responding.

Ordinarily, I wouldn't go overboard on this point, but I have something to say about the Sports Guy's whining that I mentioned in a recent post that has been weighing on my mind over the last few days. Seeing him whine about bloggers who slander people makes me wonder what exactly he thinks he does in his writing.

Is he entirely fair to Art Shell? I admit, Art Shell didn't bring images of George Patton to mind as he prowled the sidelines. But Art Shell is also an NFL Hall of Fame left tackle, and one of the best offensive linemen of all time. Is it worse to call a sportswriter a tool from Connectitcut who never slid into second base than to run down Art Shell for being a bad coach on a bad team?

And then there is Isiah Thomas. Isiah certainly doesn't think Simmons is very fair to him. Coach Thomas went so far as to call out the Sports Guy. I liked Simmons suggestion that the two meet in a more mature setting to hash out their differences. The more I look into this story arc, the more I see a few of Jay Mariotti's character traits in Bill Simmons. Perhaps Simmons shares the opinion of his physical prowess evident in the Deadspin poll of his odds of success in a fight against Mark Cuban.

I could talk too, about Doc Rivers, whom Simmons has criticized a number of times and for whose Celtics tenure Simmons even provided a premature obituary. And Danny Ainge, who has assembled a team that could not win even if Red coached them in his prime. Simmons has not called for his dismissal, even though the Sports Guy professes to love the Celtics.

What really bothers me is the slander on Springsteen. I grew up loving Springsteen's music. Like a lot of people at the time, I misinterpreted Born in the USA. In my defense, I was 5 when it came out in 1984. I was a bit more aware of contemporary music at that age than most children because I grew up in a house with four older brothers. Plus I like to think that even at that age my obvious natural superiority to my peers was well evident. NB- This blog isn't a very representative sample of my intelligence or writing ability. My laziness, anger issues, misanthropy and drinking habits are much more evident in this space.

To imply that Springsteen would consider selling a song of his to Verizon shows a fundamental ignorance of the man and his principles that cannot exist in an intelligent child of the 1980s. Springsteen came out an aggressively criticized the incumbent President of the United States for attempting to appropriate Born in the USA. He allowed Kerry to use No Retreat, No Surrender, but the Boss had campaigned against the current President as well. Springsteen also refused to allow American car makers to purchase the rights to the song for commercials.

As steamed as I am about that, it's still not enough to make Simmons the tool of the week. That honor goes to me today. As I looked over a few of my posts from earlier in the football season, I came across a sentence or two that I really want to delete. I actually questioned whether Florida was good enough to win the SEC championship game. I badmouthed Urban Meyer as a coach. I was right about Michigan as a team whjo whined a lot about their bowl position and then got killed. But I was wrong about BC on the same prediction. That and my track record in the NFL with the Bears and Cowboys.... Yikes.

A lesser man, or at least a less arrogant one, would have given up on picking the outcome of games. I am not one to accept it when I've been humbled. I'll continue fighting on in the face of every instinct that tells me to cut my losses. So this week, I think the Bears will beat the Seahawks.

It has all the telltale signs that I should have noticed last season when I picked the Bears over the Panthers. Last year, the Bears beat up on the Panthers in the regular season at Soldier Field. The defense dominated that meeting. Then the Bears had a quarterback change at the end of the season. Then they went on to play abysmally as the home team coming off a first round bye in last season's playoffs.

This season, the Bears played the Seahawks (who were without Tiki Barber's stunt double) and beat them convincingly. Their defense dominated the Seahawks. Now they come into this week's matchup against Seattle with a QB controversy, injuries and fatigue on defense (losing Tommie Harris hasn't helped, nor has Tank Johnson with his close friend's shooting death and the alleged arsenal at his house). But I think the Bears will win this one, even though Matt Hasselbeck's mom will be doing her best to care for the team in the hostile environment. I'm bound to be right sooner or later.

Then there is the much anticipated matchup between the Pats and the Chargers. In spite of my friend from San Diego and his man crush on Marcus McNeil, I have to take the Pats. Yes, I know that 75% of LDT's yards and TDs have come over the left side of the offense this season. I know McNeil is the left tackle, but is his mere presence enough to account for that. Without access to the entire season's game film and play calls, I can't speak with 100% certainty on this phenomenon. All I can do is ask questions.

For instance, where is Antonio Gates lined up when Tomlinson runs behind McNeil? Surely the presence of a receiver of his caliber impacts the alignment of the secondary. If he is on the other side of the field, the secondary must be lined up to reflect that and might, then, not be in ideal position to react to a back of LDT's talents quickly enough to stop him. LDT must get to the second level of the defense for this theory to come into play, and it's not likely that even the great LDT can do that without help from his left tackle. However, that might make McNeil A piece of the puzzle, as opposed to THE piece.

Another valid question: "Is Brandon Manumaleuna in the formation?" Manumaleuna is a great blocking tight end. He is valuable, both as a front side blocker and a decoy. If he's lined up next to McNeil, he's helping him out. If he's on the other side of the formation, he's drawing the focus of the defense away from McNeil's side. Again, it makes McNeil important, but not the end all be all of the scheme.

Finally, what was the ratio of yards and TDs gained over the left side last year, with the immortal Roman Oben (the same Romane Oben who flopped in Tampa Bay) holding the fort. Unless LDT got a lot more of his yards and TDs over the right side in 2005, I think the rush to crown McNeil was a bit premature. He is a very good tackle, especially playing left takcle as a rookie. Not quite rookie of the year, and no Willie Roaf, Jonathan Ogden or Orlando Pace, the dominant left tackles of the last generation.

Marcus McNeil is important in this matchup, since he will face two of the best defensive ends to play San Diego this season in Richard Seymour and Ty Warren. Is he ready for a Pro Bowl player like Seymour? I don't know, but it might be the least of San Diego's problems if Marty reverts to his past playoff form.

But there is also the question of Shawne Merriman and Jamal Williams. Can the Patriots handle those two Pro Bowlers? Jason Taylor ate the Pats tackles alive, and Merriman would have beaten Taylor for Defensive Player of the Year, but for the big if (the 1/4 of the season lost to the "false-positive" test for a banned performance enhancing substance). Jamal Williams is the best nose tackle in football, with apologies to Vince Wilfork, who turned out much better than I thought he would after watching his early seasons. I thought his bulk would keep him in the game, since he can't be pushed back too far, but now he's making plays. Only time will tell.

In the end, I'm picking the Patriots. It's win-win. Either the jinx holds, and the Patriots go down, or I'm right for a change. I'm not touching either of the other games. I want Baltimore and New Orleans to win, but I don't want to go out on a limb on either game.

TO fired his publicist today, finally. She would have been tool of the week, had she been cool enough to be a tool. I don't have words to describe what a bust she was/is. That was a weird situation. Just one more reason to make me tool of the week... I have Rosanna by Toto on my iPod.

Since the Red Sox were supposed to have a double header today, I might as well throw up two posts in one day. This will probably be short, as I have somewhere I am supposed to be in one hour.

RANDOM THING I HATE #2

It's been a while since I posted the first installment of the Random Things I Hate series. These things are random in the sense that they do not pertain to the Red Sox or the Boston sports scene. I should probably come up with another title to distinguish these short segments from the randomness of the things I hate about the Sox, but I am somewhat lazy and not particularly imaginative. This evening, I think it's time to talk about the Dixie Chicks.

I like some country music. I am a big fan of George Strait. I love Johnny Cash. A lot of the old time country music is great stuff. Some of it isn't, but I can put up with it. I don't like too much of what has come out of Nashville of late. The Dixie Chicks are at the top of the list of the acts that I hate.

Unlike a lot of people, or so it seems lately, I don't really care about the politics of musicians. Republican, Democrat, Communist, Nihilist, whatever. If the music is good, I listen. I think that celebrities should probably stay away from their misguided efforts to influence voters. First of all, no matter which side of the spectrum they're on, they should remember that they really aren't smarter or better informed than the average person. Also, they probably do more damage to their own cause than they help.

That said, it's a free country. So they can say and do whatever they want. The Dixie Chicks have every right to say what they want about the President. And people who like the President (few though they may be right now) have every right to react to those comments as they did. I've now gone a long way to say this: the Dixie Chicks, like Mark Cuban, are frauds.

What got my attention was the fact that they compared themselves to Bruce Springsteen. They may have similar political leanings, they record music, and as far as I know they breathe air, but that's about all they have in common with Springsteen.

In the apology one of the Chicks made to the View, she did say that they consider the Boss a role model and not a peer. She said the Dixie Chicks often ask themselves: "What would Springsteen do?" I would offer this as an answer to that rhetorical question: "Springsteen would make good music."

By a conservative estimate, Springsteen has at least 3 songs that are infinitely better than anything in the Dixie Chicks' songbook on the Seeger Sessions alone. "Wide Open Spaces" and "Ready to Run" aren't ready for comparisons to "Tenth Avenue Freezeout" and "Backstreets," let alone "Born to Run" or "Thunder Road." "Earl's Gotta Die" has nothing for edge or power on anything from Darkness on the Edge of Town or Nebraska.

I hate the Dixie Chicks. They were ready to trade on their appearance and their cutie-pie redneck image to make it big, and now they're not ready to make nice, if I can take their recent album title at its word. Not ready to make nice. Would that they were ready to make something approximating music.

Great Moments in Red Sox History #3

Dateline: 5/25/02

I must confess, I don't know who the Red Sox played on this date. It seems like a strange intro for the third episode of Great Moments in Red Sox History, but you have to bear with me for a second. All will become clear in time. Or at least it will become less clear but in a way that I hope is somewhat entertaining.

The scene for our great moment in Red Sox history is the Fleet Center. It was a great day for Boston sports. The Celtics completed the largest 4th quarter comeback in NBA playoff history, overcoming a deficit of 21 points at the beginning of the last quarter. They beat the New Jersey Nets, a team which I really hate. Antoine Walker had a big game (he ended up with 23 points, but he kept the Cs alive when the rest of the team was ice cold from the floor).

I was at this game. I was having a hell of a time. When Jason Kidd touched the ball, I booed and screamed "Wifebeater" at him with the rest of the crowd. Perhaps it was not an enlightened way to pass an afternoon, but life is too short not to do dumb things on occasion. Over the course of the game, I noticed something I found disconcerting. Fans in the Fleet Center started up a "Yankees Suck" chant. I found that to be pathetic.

Since I am not a Red Sox fan, I do not suffer from the inferiority complex that bedevils Bostonians when it comes to the Bronx Bombers. I don't have a problem with negativity and hostility against opposing teams (as I said in the preceding paragraph, I booed Jason Kidd). I do, however, have a problem with chanting "Yankees Suck" at every opportunity.

There is a time and a place for that sort of behavior. It's at Fenway Park when the Yankees are in town. If you chant "Yankees suck" when the Royals are in town and losing by 10 runs, you are a tool. One day when I have more time and find myself less depressed than I am at the moment (there's nothing like a 3 game Red Sox winning streak to put a damper on a weekend), I might describe in detail the order of magnitude for tools of the human variety. Tonight just isn't that night.

I don't really know where I'd put the tools who chant "Yankees Suck" at Fenway when they aren't playing the Yanks. It's not really that high on the list. It certainly doesn't challenge the level of tool that sings U2's One at the top of their lungs in a bar.

That image is fresh in my mind since I recently witnessed such a spectacle. Now I like U2 a lot, and I really like that particular song. I merely think Bono recorded the definitive version. I certainly don't want to hear some jackass with a beard the like of which hasn't been popular since Sir Walter Raleigh stalked the Earth sing it. It was not a good time, but I digress.

That kind of tool, the lizard king of the yuppies in Anytown, USA is the same kind of tool who chants "Yankees Suck" at a basketball game. A basketball game. A playoff basketball game. The first time the team had been to the conference finals in over a decade. The series was tied 1-1. The team pulled off a miraculous comeback. And all that people in the crowd can think about is that now would be a good time to chant "Yankees Suck."

You can tell yourself whatever you want about the myth of the inferiority complex in Red Sox Nation. You can't change the fact that Red Sox fans chant "Yankees Suck" at the drop of a hat, regardless of time and place. I've seen people with "Yankees Suck" shirts walking up to the Communion line at Mass. It really makes me question whether intelligent life exists on this planet.

I suppose I'm overreacting to this particular instance of the "Yankees Suck" phenomenon. Just because it was an historic moment for the NBA and for the Celtics organization does not mean that it should displace a preoccupation with New York and the Yankees for even an instant. After all, it was just another moment. It's not as though Red Sox fans saw fit to chant Yankees Suck at a moment as significant as Bruce Springsteen playing the first rock concert in Fenway Park's then 91 year history. Oh wait, they did.


P.S. I have it on reliable authority that Danny Ainge was quoted in the Herald in the not too distant past intimating that he had no idea what direction the team needed to take in the upcoming draft. What a shock! I must say, I'd be infinitely more surprised if he did know that. It might be a first sign that a man who has been around the NBA as a player, broadcaster and executive since 1981 is developing a small measure of basketball IQ.

Here's an idea for you, Danny. Draft the stiff from West Virginia. The best way to find out if he's really the second coming of Raef LaFrentz has to be to pair them up on a team. Then we could completely reverse conventional wisdom as it applies to basketball. Guard could go down and post up, and 7 footers could stand at the three point line and look useless. That will sell some tickets.