Patriots vs. Saints Monday night game a must see

The Saints are undefeated while the Patriots are just a few plays from being undefeated themselves. Both teams have a very high-powered offense with young gun quarterbacks. So what is the storyline of this game? The Patriots are going up against a team who is a carbon copy of their team just a few years ago. That is right! The New Orleans Saints are being compared to the Patriots of 2007 who went undefeated in the regular season but eventually lost in the Super Bowl.

It is very interesting to note the similarities in statistics. According to boston.com, here are some stats that prove the comparison:

POINTS PER GAME
2007 Patriots: 36.8
2009 Saints: 36.9

YARDS PER GAME
2007 Patriots: 420.5
2009 Saints: 411.2

YARDS PER PLAY
2007 Patriots: 6.2
2009 Saints: 6.4

FIRST DOWNS PER GAME
2007 Patriots: 24.6
2009 Saints: 22.1

THIRD DOWN PERCENTAGE
2007 Patriots: 48.2
2009 Saints: 46.9

TIME OF POSSESSION
2007 Patriots: 32:21
2009 Saints: 32:31

Drew Brees is a quarterback who might not get the necessary attention that he deserves. He has the chance to go over 4,400 yards for the season for the fourth straight season. To put that in perspective, Peyton Manning has only done it twice while Brady only once.

This game is one that I am sure will get the rating it deserves. The Patriots are a dynasty, competing at the top of the pack every single year of this decade. The Saints are making a statement for a dynasty of their own. They just need to mirror the Patriot's Super Bowl rings to make a case of their own. It is sure to be one of the candidates for game of the year.

Thanksgiving pigskin games a treat?

Well Thanksgiving is right around the corner and it made me think of Thanksgiving traditions. Turkey...pie...and...football! Watching football with the family is indeed a great Thanksgiving tradition. Every Thanksgiving, it is a tradition that we see both the Detroit Lions and Dallas Cowboys at some point during the day. Looking back at the history of Thanksgiving football games, it got me thinking. These games really are not intriguing match-ups...at all.

Take this year for example: Green Bay Packers vs. Detroit Lions, Oakland Raiders vs. Dallas Cowboys, and in the night cap the New York Giants vs. Denver Broncos. These games have some similarities. All three games has at least one awful team (Detroit, Oakland, and Denver (yes Denver)). All three games have a mediocre to good team (Green Bay, Dallas, and New York). All three games will most likely be a lop sided score.

Add all of that up and you get three really boring games. How come the NFL does not schedule three good match-ups rather than three lop sided match-ups? Don't get me wrong, the games might turn out to be intriguing. More than likely, however, we will see a lot of good offense and not enough good defense which will lead to boring football games.

In the Green Bay/Detroit match-up, you have a good offense with an average defense go against just an awful team in general. I don't care who you are and what you think, Detroit is always going to be an awful team. I certainly do not have the answer to solve that disaster in the motor city.

In the Oakland/Dallas match-up, you have a team who is coming off an impressive upset and a team who has been mediocre at best with their talent. Although Oakland put up a fight in Cincinnati, don't expect them to fair that well against a Dallas team who can still hang with the big boys. I'm not rocket scientist but I think it's safe to say that Dallas has the edge.

Finally in the night game on NFL Network, you have a somewhat interesting match-up of two teams who use to be undefeated but have tanked ever since their first loss. The Giants and Broncos were once 5-0 on the young season but since have lost the majority of their games. For Denver, their quarterback is not cutting it whether it is Kyle Orton or Chris Simms. For New York, they have a solid defense but an unsettled offense who seems to make a fair amount of mistakes. If there is going to be any intriguing match-up on Thursday it will end up being this one. Then again, Denver should be good but keeps getting blown out.

Have a great and safe Thanksgiving everyone and do your best to enjoy some not so great holiday football.

In a stunning move, Jones-Drew takes a knee...

In an interesting move by the Jaguars running back, Maurice Jones-Drew took a knee on the one yard line instead of scampering into the end zone on Sunday. The reason was to allow the clock to continue ticking down so that the Jets would not get another chance to score. Smart move? I think so.



I can honestly say that I have never seen anything like what I saw Jones-Drew do. I have seen wide receivers run parallel to the goal line in an effort to run out the clock but I have never seen someone take a knee. When you think about it, what he did was not as big of a gamble as some people might think. The Jaguars were only down 1 point, leaving the field goal as a viable opthttp://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5119245829815187443ion to win the game. The final score of the game tells you how much of a dogfight it was to the very end. Why allow the other team to even have a chance to win? Taking a knee makes a lot of sense as a player. It just does not look like the right thing to do. Some could argue that it was a bit of unsportsmanlike, but it is still within the scope of the rules. After all, you play to win the game.

On a separate note on the story, Maurice Jones-Drew publicly apologized to fantasy owners all over the nation for taking the knee and not scoring the touchdown. It shows you just how serious a fantasy sports league can be. Athletes are now holding themselves responsible for a fantasy owner's outcome.

Here is the apology..."I was looking for someone to tackle me but they were going to let me score...I apologize to all my fantasy owners...I had myself(Sunday),too. It was a tough call, but whatever it takes to win."

Was 4th down decision the right one for Belichick and Patriots?

So here is the scene...Patriots are up 34-28 with two minutes remaining in the game. It is 4th down and 2 yards to go. As a coach, would you go for it and end the game right then and there or punt the ball deep into the opposing team's side and make them beat you with a notable game-winning drive? Most people would choose to punt the ball and force the opposing team to drive the length of the field to win. Bill Belichick is NOT most people. In a risky move, he decided to go for the win and ended up coming up short. The Indianapolis Colts ended up winning the game, 35-34, and the decision to go for it on 4th down turned into a nightmare for thousands of Patriots fans.

Here is why it was the wrong call...
The Patriots were on their own 28 yard line. By going for it on 4th down, the Colts only had to drive 28 yards to score rather than the 60+ yards they would have had to if the Patriots punted the ball. Also, by electing to go for it on 4th down, Belichick sent a message to his defense that he had no faith in them stopping Peyton Manning and the Colt's offense. It is clear that the Patriot's D isn't what it use to be a couple of years ago. If you are talking about numbers, however, it would make more sense to trust your defense to stop the Colt's offense from going 60+ yards versus only 28.

Here is why it was the right call...
The Patriots vs. Colts rivalry is at its highest. Ever since the Colts stormed back to beat the Patriots in the AFC Championship game a few years ago, it became clear that each team circled the schedule when the two teams met. With that sense of rivalry, it makes sense to make gutsy calls and going for the win when you can. Just think about it this way: would you rather call a play and gain two yards to end the game or punt the ball and allow the opposing offense to score in two minutes? Two minutes is a lot of time for any offense let alone the high-powered Colts offense. The Patriots defense was also clearly exhausted and unable to cover the pass. It is not stretching the truth by any means stating that the defense would have given up the touchdown even if they punted the ball. A lot of statistics have surfaced since the game concluded supporting Belichick's decision to go for it. Based on 4th down conversion percentages and yards per down percentages, Belichick's offense should have gotten those two crucial yards. It just didn't work out for the otherwise successful coach.

The decision of going for it on 4th down will always be a debate whether or not the team is successful or not. We still could be having this debate if the Patriots were successful in gaining those two yards. Gutsy decisions call for harsh criticism by the media and fans. However, taking risks is what sets one coach apart from all the others. Whether or not you believe Belichick made the right call, one thing is still clear: looking back through his coaching history you will see that he has always been a coach who has made the gutsy calls necessary to win. Usually, his decisions pay off. It just happens that this one didn't work out.

Yet another athlete gets in trouble with social media

I am beginning to think that athletes need to take Social Media Marketing with Kelly Cotiaux at the New England School of Communications. This is getting ridiculous. Here is the deal. Dwight Howard of the Orlando Magic has just been fined $15,000 for his comments about the refs in his blog.

Here is what he said: "How can that be, ya'll? It was crazy. They called me for a charge on a flop, a push off when the defender was on me and two fouls on blocked shots."

Howard also wrote that he hadn't played "that little in a game since I was 10 years old in pee-wee ball." He said, "What really bothers me is they are letting guys hammer me at one end of the floor, yet I'm being called for everything."

Here is a little advice for all athletes whether professional or not...USE YOUR HEAD AND STOP CRITICIZING OTHER PEOPLE ON YOUR BLOG, FACEBOOK, TWITTER, OR WHATEVER! FREEDOM OF SPEECH DOES NOT NECESSARILY PROTECT YOU FROM LOSING YOUR JOB OVER A STUPID COMMENT!

Instant replay will remain the same in MLB

This postseason in baseball, we experienced numerous bad calls by the umpiring crews. They were so bad that MLB officials actually changed the World Series umpiring crew in order to steer away from bad calls. That move did not work either. It seemed as though MLB could not catch a break when it came to calling the plays. Instant replay would have cleared all that controversy up. However, after further review, MLB general managers have voted to keep instant replay the way it is. MLB currently has a policy to use instant replay only to determine whether a homerun is fair or foul or cleared the fence. That is the only instant replay allowed in baseball.

I personally believe that there needs to be some room for improvement. I mean the television stations calling the games can clearly see what is going on and often times umpires mess up calls half a dozen times a game. That is just unacceptable in my eyes. If MLB is not going to adopt another instant replay policy, then they certainly need to figure out a way to train umpires better. We saw the worst umpiring call ever this postseason when the Yankees-Angels squared off in the American League Championship Series. Here is it for those who missed it:



After watching that play over and over again, it is clear that instant replay can only benefit the game rather than hurt the integrity of the game. I understand the argument about letting the real people make the decisions but this is getting out of hand. Just look at how successful instant replay is becoming in the NFL. The NBA and NHL are also using instant replay effectively to ensure that all the right calls are being made. MLB needs to get their act together and realize that instant replay needs to be used more in the game. It cant hurt...can it?

Twitter part of the reason why this running back is out of a job

Well it is official...running back Larry Johnson has just been released from the Kansas City Chiefs shortly after being suspended by the team twice in two years. The reason? A huge part of the decision to release him was his attitude that lead him to tweet negatively about his head coach. The worst part of the situation was that he used a gay slur in his tweets about his head coach.

One tweet read: My father got more creditentials than most of these pro coaches." That was followed by: "My father played for the coach from "rememeber the titans". Our coach played golf. My father played for redskins briefley. Our coach. Nuthn."

That drew up responses from people for which Johnson struck back using the gay slur.

It is a shame that athletes have to act the way that they do. Such wasted talent nowadays. Larry Johnson is a pretty solid player but now that talent is overshadowed by his opinion and big mouth. On top of his mouth, he has also had a few run-ins with the law. He plead guilty to two counts of disturbing the peace when he was charged with throwing a drink on one woman while pulling another woman's hair back. He was also accused of spitting in someone's face outside a nightclub.

Although his attitude is sour, his talent is not. He was one of the best running backs in the league for 2005 and 2006 rushing for close to 2,000 yards each season. The year, however, production has gone down only averaging 2.7 yards per carry.

Performance is also to blame but the major reason people believe Larry Johnson is jobless is due to his unacceptable use of the social media site Twitter. This just further proves why you should filter out information you do not want other professionals seeing. Make your social media sites professional friendly...even if you are an overpaid athlete! It may cost you your job.

Redskins owner calls own team "a let down."

Dan Snyder made a rare in-season media appearance. One that is memorable in the owner's content. He is embarrassed, hurt, frustrated, and apologetic to name a few adjectives. His team is 2-5 on the young season and many things have gone wrong internally as well as externally with the team.

Here is a direct quote:
"It really hurts," Snyder said. "We are really trying very, very hard, everyone at Redskins Park, the coaches, the players. The organization's quite frankly held together well, and I think we've got an opportunity the rest of the season to hopefully get it going. But to date we've let everyone down, including ourselves, and we know that and we're just apologetic. We've blown some games that obviously we think we should have won."

Isn't a team owner suppose to maintain a sense of optimism with the team? I mean how can he expect the players to focus on the game ahead when the owner is calling them "a let down?" I find it funny that Snyder made these comments because the fans in Washington partly blame him for the team's poor success. It makes you stop and think. The Washington Redskins have either been mediocre at best or poor for many years now. They have hired Hall of Fame coaches and signed the top free agents and players. So what hasn't changed? The ownership and front office has not changed. Many consider Dan Snyder as the constant for the team's lack of success. If you look back at the team, you see a whole lot of potential in the talent of the players.

This off-season, they spent a lot of money on the what some considered the best defensive player in the league, Albert Haynseworth. They have a stellar running back in Clinton Portis and a dynamite reciever in Santana Moss. The talent is clearly there. It is how the team is being run that is in question by fans. Snyder stripped his own head coach of play-calling duties earlier in the season but did not fire him. Why? He even banned all signs and banners brought in by fans. Are you serious? Something is wrong in the nation's capital. That something is the Redskin's executive staff, mainly the owner Dan Snyder.

For more information on this story, go to:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/11/03/redskins.ap/index.html

"Colbert Report" sponsors U.S. Speedskating team?

In a very interesting move, it is confirmed that Comedy Central's mock talk-show "The Colbert Report" will sponsor the United States Speedskating team as they head to Vancouver for the Olympics. The name "Colbert Nation" will be displayed on the teams uniforms. The interesting part of this story is the fact that the show will not be paying the team any money. Colbert is calling on his viewers and fans to donate money to the cause. In the past, Colbert has been successful raising money this way.

I personally find this story to be both hilarious and meaningful. Stephen Colbert is a funny guy, but his decision in this story is one that can be considered honorable. The team's main sponsor, DSB Bank NV, declared for bankruptcy in October. Sure you can classify this sponsorship as a publicity stunt, but you can't help but notice the meaning of the move. Stephen Colbert can raise hundreds of thousands of dollars on his image alone and help this team get the funding they deserve. I think Stephen Colbert deserves a round of applause for his efforts on this matter.

This story is still one that is down right hilarious. Can you picture the words "Colbert Nation" on the team's uniforms? I certainly can and it makes me laugh just thinking about it. This move certainly goes with his TV persona of being very patriotic. I can't wait to find out how well this fundraising campaign goes for Colbert and Team U.S.A. It is a win-win for both parties. Stephen Colbert gets his name out there in the sports world while Team U.S.A. gets some well-deserved p.r. and advertising on the television show.

For more information on this outrageous story, go to:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/more/11/03/colbert.vancouver.ap/index.html