Roethlisberger won a Super Bowl and Rivers didn't have Tomlinson.

"We thought he was the best of the three then (Rivers, Manning and Ben Roethlisberger) and we think he's the best of three now," Accorsi wrote. "People who dwell on statistics in football, just cling to them because they can't evaluate QBs. The job is QB, not passer. Unitas and Namath didn't have good QB ratings. They threw a lot of interceptions because they took risks and had to carry their teams."

Exactly.

Which is why Roethlisberger and Rivers are better.


While I suppose I understand Accorsi's need to strike back, shouldn't he reign it in a little bit?

"What difference does it make what we gave up?" Accorsi continued. "You better be right about the QB, but if you are, you can't overpay for a great QB and we think he's going to be a great QB. What would you give up for Elway? What would you give for Montana or Unitas? Just like you can't overpay a great player. Can you overpay for Mays or DiMaggio? That's all fodder."

I'm not sure if he understands the meaning of the word "fodder," but he just compared Eli Manning to:

1. John Elway.
2. Joe Montana.
3. Johnny Unitas.
4. Willie Mays.
5. Joe DiMaggio.

So not the same as Yankees / Red Sox.

I don't detect any rivalry between the Giants and the Patriots, though I'm not the best person to ask. I honestly didn't even know the Cowboys were the Giants' big rivals. I thought it was the Eagles or the 49ers:

"New England is now the old Yankees, an immoveable juggernaut that expects dominance and demands championships. The Giants are the new Red Sox, a loose franchise of why-not dreamers that needed three road victories just to reach the Super Bowl."

The Giants are basically nothing like the '04 Red Sox. The Red Sox had not won a World Series in ... how many years was it? ... I think it was 86 years, if I remember correctly.

I may not be sure because I only heard about it 100 billion times.


Oh, and the Giants absolutely have something to lose. It's called a football game. It's why they keep score.

I should also point out that it's so much more than just a football game. It's a battle between New York and New England, underdogs and soul-crushing juggernauts, bagels and clam chowder, blah blah blah and blah blah blah.

Two ways of life, really. America's future is at stake. It's the difference between Immortality and Infamy:

"Which is why this isn't just a Super Bowl clash, but something bigger. Fair or not, New England's quest for perfection changes the stakes for this game. The Patriots either win and enjoy immortality or lose and suffer infamy."

I realize I care more about baseball than the other sports, but I'd give the Patriots the next ten straight Super Bowl Championships in exchange for one Yankee win vs. Baltimore in mid-July.

Football.

I can not help it. I'm bemused by the dialectical forces at work:

"The thing is, 'Do they win?' Davis always told me, 'Here's how you judge a quarterback: Can he take his team down the field with the game on the line and get them in the end zone?'"

Nice drive at the end of the first half. Yes, indeed.

But, in the fourth quarter, on 3rd and 17, the Giants called for a screen pass. On 3rd and short, they opted to run the ball. Twice.

With the game on the line, the Giants played it safe and, as far as I can recollect, he did not get his team in the end zone.

Which is fine as long as your team wins, I suppose. Relying on your defense is not a bad strategy when your quarterback is below average.


Now, do you want to hear Ernie Accorsi go completely mad after his QB throws for 170 yards in a playoff game? Then, buckle up:

"I still think he's the best of the three (quarterbacks), but that's another story."

...

"He's going to win championships for this franchise. Whether Eli becomes his brother, it doesn't matter. Winning championships is all that matters."

Maybe he just misspoke, but Accorsi (sp?) just said that Eli will win more than one championship with the Giants.

I'll believe that when I see it.

Because Tom Brady is not retiring anytime soon, as far as I know. Neither is Peyton Manning. Neither is Ben Roethlisberger or freakin' Vince Young, for that matter.

In fact, for every year that Eli plays for the Giants, the AFC will exist.


Also, if winning championships is all that matters, then why is everybody getting all gleeful about making the Final Four?

You think the Giants will beat the Patriots this year? I sure don't. If they don't, then Eli will be 0-3 in the playoffs.

Richard Nixon or Trot Nixon?

I understand the concept of representative democracy vs. direct democracy.

I also understand that Federal policies are not dictated by, of all things, a poll on CBS Sportsline.

But I also think that members of the House of Representatives should Represent their constituencies:

"Is Congress wasting time with baseball and steroids?

34% No
66% Yes

Total Votes: 5651"

Best-case scenario is what, exactly?

Let's say performance-enhancing drugs are completely eliminated from baseball forever and every single baseball player who ever used performance-enhancing drugs is identified and punished.

It was still a waste of time.

The old, white men in Congress are very concerned with protecting the legacy of Maris's 1961 homerun record. Probably have a charming story of a freckle-faced younger version of themselves sneaking a radio into their bedrooms and listening to baseball games after their parents had tucked them in. Especially Willie, Mickey, and the Duke. God Bless the Good Ol' Days. It's an outrage that cheaters and liars have stolen the records from True Americans like Roger Maris and Hank Aaron.

Let's make a collective decision apply 1/10th of this outrage towards the price of gas.

Of course.

Often times, the knee-jerk reaction is right on:

"I was wondering if Derek Jeter's numbers would be Hall of Fame worthy if his career were to end today. He's not a power hitter, doesn't steal a ton of bases and he's had only one season with more than 100 RBIs. I know he's a great leader and great hitter for average, but does he have enough to make the Hall of Fame?-- Elizabeth C., Scarsdale, N.Y.

The knee-jerk reaction is to say, 'of course,' but let's look at it."

The funny thing about Jeter is that he's one of the greatest shortstops to ever play the game and a shoo-in first-ballot HOFer. Even if he never played a playoff game and wasn't the Yankee Caption and Yankee icon.

At the same time, he's quite overrated.

It's not the intangibles that make him great; it's the tangibles that make him great.

See? Felz is a level-headed, gracious person.

In all seriousness, I think ARod would be a better quarterback than Eli.

I don't know if Lupica comes up with these headlines, and I don't have the patience to read the column carefully enough to determine the context.

But the headline actually states "athletes' lies are the worst of all."

Like, Marion Jones lying about her PEDs is worse than ... well, you fill in the blank. I'm sure you can easily find a lie in your own experiences that hurt you more than Marion Jones's bogus Olympic medals. If you can not draw upon your own experiences, then simply watch one episode of Judge Greg Mathis or read a Noam Chomsky book.

One time, a guy told me he needed money to get his brother out of jail. The guy was lying. Cost me $90. Marion Jones, Mark McGwire, and Larry Craig combined have not cost me $90.


I would also like to point out that baseball is different than football:

"Just by playing the way he did against Tampa Bay and getting the Giants out of the first round, Eli Manning has already had a better postseason than A-Rod and Jeter combined."

From this point forward, when Lupica decides to deride the playoff performance of the 2007 Yankees, I think he should focus on Chien-Ming Wang's 19.00+ playoff ERA.

In the four games of the 2007 playoffs, ARod hit .26-something with a HR, made no errors (that I can recall), had a few bad strikeouts. Nothing spectacular; sort of mediocre.

Sort of like the way Eli Manning played when he beat the Bucs and the Cowboys.

Difference is, Eli had a good team backing him up.


A "pitcher" may be somewhat analagous to an NFL team's "defense," and Eli wouldn't have gotten anywhere if his defense had given up 60 points.

Right?

Right.

But that's not a really good analogy, is it? Because it's just stupid to compare football to baseball in the first place. Or boxing to baseball. Or Presidential races to baseball. Or the second season of "Lost" to baseball.

All of these comparisons reveal nothing.


I'd also like to point out that Jeter's 2007 playoff series was downright awful.

But, just by playing the way he did and getting to the first round, he had a better postseason than Jose Reyes, David Wright, Tom Glavine, and Paul Lo Duca combined.

The gubmint do take a bite, don't she?

"I cannot wait to go into the private sector and hopefully never have to answer it again."

Major league baseball is in the private sector.

Just sayin', Mr. Clemens.

Please don't kill me.

Just say no.

In my high school, I was in an animation class. The final project was a three or four minute animated short. Mine was "Gumby vs. Rambo." My favorite was "Crack is Wack."

It was a big deal back then. Crackbabies getting AIDS; the Drug Czar; George Bush I on TV with a baggie of crack that was bought right across the street from the White House!

Who knew it was all "recreational"?:

"To me, there's a difference between recreational drugs and PEDs — Raines cheated himself and perhaps his team, but not his sport. Amphetamines fall more toward PEDs, and almost certainly were more prevalent until they were banned in 2005. What about that?"

Fine with me, but please put Pete Rose in the HOF tomorrow and don't ever bring up the morals clause ever again.

I suspect this is a common workaround.

At least brings up Raines's cocaine use. Most of the commentators have either forgotten or chosen to sweep it under the rug:

"The 10th man on my ballot (and electors may vote for only 10) is Tim Raines. Raines had drug issues, but they were recreational drug issues. Cocaine, to be exact. 'Coke' was illegal, but no one has suggested it made for better careers. It messed up Raines' head but it didn't attack the integrity of the on-field product.

Meantime, I will not vote for McGwire until/unless he is cleared."

"Recreational drugs" are okay because, well, presumably because they're "recreational." The lesson for our nation's children is that crack is sort of like hiking or camping. It's "recreational."

"No one has suggested" that cocaine made for better careers. Well, let me be the First Person Ever to suggest that cocaine could conceivably make for a better career and attack the integrity of the on-field product.

I actually don't know.

I could conceive of a situation where cocaine relieves pain and provides energy. That sort of thing.

But let's suppose that Raines took an illegal substance that hampered his baseball-playing ability. Ummm, why are we rewarding him for this? At least McGwire's illegal substance helped his team win baseball games.

Cocaine was very illegal. Still is.

Legally, ethically, medically, I think taking cocaine is worse than taking steroids.

Tim Raines is a swell guy, right?

Swell guy who slid headfirst because he was worried about breaking the vial of cocaine that was in his pocket while he was playing professional baseball.

Me, personally? I'd put them all in the Hall of Fame if their numbers add up. I'm all for redemption and second chances and such. Equal treatment for Tim Raines and for Mark McGwire.

Which was it? Four or six?

"McNamee injected Clemens in the buttocks four to six times with testosterone from a bottle labeled either Sustanon 250 or Deca-Durabolin. ... McNamee stated that during this same time period he also injected Clemens four to six times with human growth hormone..."

Four to six?

Sustanon 250 or Deca-Durabolin?

Pretty solid testimony there.

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot about the human growth hormone.

It was four or six or ten or twenty or one hundred times from a bottle labeled something.