"They love you at the beginning and they love you at the end. It’s the middle that’s tough."

-- Steve Grogan

* * *

For Anthony Nomar Garciaparra, the middle of the middle qualified as the spring of 2003 through mid-summer 2004, when it all fell apart. His relationship with the Red Sox. His place in the Holy Trinity of shortstops. His health and, eventually, his career.

And so today, on a day when Garciaparra got closure to it all by signing a ceremonial one-day contract with the Red Sox to announce his retirement, we are left to ponder who Garciaparra was here and what his legacy will be.

So Garciaparra held the media in disdain during his time in Boston. Big deal. So does Bill Belichick. Nobody ever said someone had to like the press, or vice-versa, to be a superstar presence in Boston, where we want the Hall of Fame talents to be perfect human beings, too. Garciaparra was difficult, uncooperative, and terribly insincere at times, but none of that makes him a bad guy. It may have made him a bad actor and a colossal pain in the pillows, but he was never a bad teammate. What he was, at the end of his time in Boston, was a terribly disgruntled employee who couldn’t get past his own issues, which is why the Red Sox cut the cord and moved on.

And so today, are we to believe that Garciaparra and Larry Lucchino will be vacationing together in Bali in the years to come? Of course not. Undoubtedly, Garciaparra forever will harbor some resentment toward the Red Sox just as they will toward him. That will never change. But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and both the Sox and Garciaparra can now tie this one off in a pretty satin bow, whether or not anyone cares to ask if the package is empty.

As for Garciaparra himself, know this about him: he is not the same man now he was then. As a father and husband, he is more mature, more secure, more understanding. As a player who has worn four uniforms, he has come to understand the business of baseball as much he always understood the game. Anyone who ever watched Garciaparra play could see that he took an absurd amount of anxiety with him to work everyday, and anyone who bothered to ask him about it got the sense he lived in fear.

If you were among those who thought Garciaparra was paranoid or neurotic, you had your reasons.

"I definitely expect myself to be a certain way, but at the same time you’re in an environment where you walk on eggshells and can ruin you,’’ Garciaparra said during a private interview in February 2003. "Let’s face it, there are things that still get brought up about some guys from six, seven or eight years ago so you have to watch everything. You’re constantly stressed. And so if you’re not careful, everything gets destroyed that you’ve worked so hard for."

Now, ironically enough, we remember things about Garciaparra from six, seven, eight years ago. What he failed to understand then was that we were going to bring up those things no matter what. He certainly understands that now.

Most people who follow the Red Sox and the Boston media know much of the history that existed between Garciaparra and reporters, so let’s get this out there: I got along with him better than most, which is hardly to suggest that we’re best friends. We’re not. Garciaparra could be cold enough to walk right past you at a public appearance without acknowledging your existence, kind enough to walk across the room and shake your hand in the same setting. Most of the mistakes he made in Boston were because he did not know how to act, what to say, what to do. In many ways, he was a terrible fit for a place like Boston, where we ask a lot more questions than they do in Dodgertown, Wrigleyville or the Bay Area.

Why do you swing at the first pitch so much, Nomah? What happened on that throw, Nomah? Do you really like it here, Nomah?

Those of us who have always lived here and worked here accept that all as part of the deal. You take the bad with the good. For Garciaparra, it was all a needless reminder of everything that can go wrong, of the things Garciaparra spent far too much of his time thinking about.

As a result, most people saw him as a divisive force when he really wasn’t. Many remember the malcontent at the end of Garciaparra’s time in Boston more than the unbridled enthusiasm of his earlier years. Some see him as part of the problem more than part of the solution.

Remember: the Red Sox were a different team then and Fenway Park was a different place. Frustration had been building for more than 80 years. Lucchino and Co. were learning about Boston as much as we were learning about them, and, along with Pedro Martinez, Garciaparra was the biggest holdover and greatest symbol of a troubled, dysfunctional franchise that just couldn’t seem to get it completely right.

Ever.

Maybe Nomar was just as frustrated with all of that as you were.

Presumably, Garciaparra knows now that there are certain things he will never escape: the rejection of a four-year, $60 million deal that ultimately cost him about $25 million; the injuries to his wrist, legs and Achilles; the disputes with team doctor Arthur Pappas and, later, Lucchino; the never-ending suspicion of steroid use regardless of whether he ever failed any tests; the perpetual feud with the media; the trade that led to a world title; the fact that Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter, once regarded as his peers, essentially went on to bigger things without him.

In the wake of all that, some of us choose to remember Garciaparra as a fascinatingly complex ballplayer who was probably in the wrong place at the wrong time, as someone who had trouble coping with relatively ordinary distractions, as someone whose intentions were generally good. At his best, he was a great baseball player. At his worst, he came off as ungrateful and impossible.

In the middle, he really wasn’t much different from anyone else.

OK, so here’s how this will work: In the vein of the Monday morning quarterback, we bring you the Monday morning blog. Each week, this will allow those of us caught in cyberspace to catch up on the weekend developments in Boston sports, a stream that begins today with …

...the unquestionably dirty hit on Marc Savard. If you haven’t seen the video, here it is, courtesy of NESN. Though culprit Matt Cooke alleges, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, that he was merely trying to finish a check and that the contact was shoulder-to-shoulder, Savard was knocked unconscious – how does that happen if you get hit in the shoulder? – and even some Pens players seemed to offer their disapproval.

"It's pretty scary stuff,’’ Penguins winger Pascal Dupuis told the Post-Gazette. "You don't wish that on anyone. It's pretty tough to watch, actually."

And why . . . because it’s clean?

Here’s the question: what’s the NHL going to do about this sort of thing? One of the issues currently being discussed by NHL general managers concerns such hits, which do not carry disciplinary measures that are severe enough. Savard will miss at least three games, maybe more, all while the Bruins are fighting for their postseason lives. Already the lowest-scoring team in the league, the B’s now have to plod along on a seven-game road without their top playmaker.

For the defending Cup champion Pens, what’s the price? Suspending a player like Cooke for even as long as Savard remains sidelined is hardly justice for obvious reasons. Relatively speaking, in terms of talent, Cooke is a clown. The good news for the Bruins is that the Pens are due in Boston on March 18, when the B’s could be forgiven for taking a run at Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin or maybe, just for kicks, even newcomer Alexei Ponikarovsky.

Maybe then Cooke’s teammates will hold him accountable. And maybe then he’ll understand the ramifications of his actions.

Meanwhile, as NFL free moves along, the Patriots have locked up Vince Wilfork, Stephen Neal and Tully Banta-Cain, which might be good news were it not for the fact that all three players wore the New England uniform last season. Thus far, the Pats have done nothing more than pay for the status quo, which last season got them a 10-6 record and a butt-kicking in the first round of the playoffs.

The problems that existed at the end of the season still remain. The Pats need a front-line pass rusher, receivers, linebackers. A good chunk of the more attractive players have been taken off the market, from Anquan Boldin and Kevin Walter to Julius Peppers and Aaron Kampman. Though there is still ample time for the Pats to address their issues – the draft is still more than a month away – the 2010 is starting to feel like much more of a rebuilding year than 2009 did, even after the Pats traded Richard Seymour.

Obviously, the Wilfork deal is terrific news. But given that he, Neal and Banta-Cain were team property to begin with, why weren’t these deals done long ago? One cannot help but wonder the announcement of these deals was timed with free agency to help soften the negative publicity that would result from relative inaction on the free agent, particularly when the Pats are focused on people like Josh Reed while the Boldins, Walters and Brandon Marshalls go elsewhere.

Fine, so the Patriots haven’t gotten worse.

But they haven’t improved yet, either.

Of course, the same seems true of the Celtics, who miraculously escaped defeat by the Washington Wizards thanks to the heroics of Ray Allen. Since the trading deadline, Allen has averaged 18.7 points per game while shooting an absurd 57.7 percent from the field overall and 44.2 percent from 3-point distance. The problem is that the Celtics generally have done nothing to inspire any more faith in them, which is precisely why they may regret having kept Allen at the trading deadline.

Think about it: when Allen, Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce were united, Allen was coming off double-ankle surgery. He was the biggest health concern of the new Big Three. As it has turned out, Allen has played in 252 of a possible 265 regular- and postseason games with the Celtics, precisely the same number as the younger, bigger Paul Pierce. Garnett (204) trails by a landlside. Allen’s contract is up at the end of the season and, as Gary Washburn points out today, keeping him may now be a more prudent decision than letting him go, largely because the Celtics don’t have the financial flexibility to use the entirety of Allen’s contract on the open market.

Still, there is a small chance that the Celtics will flip some magic switch and play the postseason as they did the early stages of the regular season, when they looked like a juggernaut. Yet, as the season goes on, it is far easier to come to the conclusion that the Celtics simply are not as good as they thought they were.

Is there really anyone that can argue with that?

Now that John Lackey has made his spring debut, maybe we can start talking about the potential dominance of the Boston starting rotation. But before anybody gets too giddy, let’s acknowledge that things rarely ever go according to plan. The last American League team with three 20-game winners was the 1973 Oakland A’s, who accomplished the feat two years after the 1971 Baltimore Orioles had four 20-game winners.

Admittedly, the 20-win season itself has become something of an aberration. (If Lackey, Josh Beckett and Jon Lester win 17 games each, no one will complain.) But the general point is that getting three ace-caliber pitchers to fire on all cylinders at the same time is the exception more than the rule, because someone is almost certainly going to have an off year. If everyone clicks, the Red Sox could win 100 games. But if everyone does not, the Sox’ perceived shortcomings on offense will be magnified, regardless of whether general manager Theo Epstein trades for a bat.

We all love this pitching staff. That was never in doubt. The Lackey signing was a huge short-term gain for the Red Sox, even if it contradicted their history with regard to free agents. If the Red Sox can keep Lackey, Beckett, and Lester healthy, they should be able to get 600 innings from them. The wins will take care of themselves. But remember that we all thought the Sox had more depth than they would need entering last season, and they ended up needing every last bit of it.

Now begins the process of rebuilding the Patriots, a team whose needs are apparent. The question is really one of priority.

Linebackers? Receivers? A pass rusher? The Patriots seemingly have needs for all, and coach Bill Belichick's history at this time of year reveals a fascinating unpredictability as much as anything else. They also may need a cornerback, as well as help on the offensive and defensive lines. Currently, the Pats do not have a single tight end on the roster. Belichick is likely to have addressed all of those areas in some capacity by the end of next month’s draft, when we will have a far better understanding of who the Patriots are and where they are going.

Regardless, make no mistake: 2010 is an enormous year for them.

The NFL being the NFL, let us not dismiss the possibility that the Pats could be right back in the thick of Super Bowl contention next January. During the 2008 regular season, the reigning world champion New Orleans Saints went 8-8 and finished last in the NFC South, a game behind the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Now the Saints are the darlings of the pro football world, having dispatched the Indianapolis Colts last month in Super Bowl XLIV.

Like the Saints, the Patriots have a smart, aggressive coach and an elite quarterback, the two biggest building blocks in any successful operation. The question now is not solely whether Belichick can fill all the Patriots' needs so much as which ones are prioritized, something we may not know until the dust settles and the Patriots begin on-field preparations for the 2010 season.

The options, after all, seem endless.

Last night, just before the start of the bidding season, the New York Jets triggered the maneuvering in the AFC East by acquiring cornerback Antonio Cromartie from the San Diego Chargers for a third-round draft choice (potentially a second-rounder) in 2011. With that acquisition, the Jets created arguably the best cornerback tandem in football (Cromartie and the supremely talented Darrelle Revis) to further fortify head coach Rex Ryan’s defense, already ranked first in the NFL.

Like the Pats’ acquisition of Adalius Thomas in early 2007, the Cromartie move looks as if it was aimed exclusively at the Colts, who defeated the Jets in the AFC Championship behind the play of Peyton Manning and young wideouts Pierre Garcon and Austin Collie. In that game, the Colts effectively sacrificed Reggie Wayne for Revis, then asked Manning to complete 18 passes for 274 yards (and two touchdowns) to Garcon and Collie. So Manning did. The Jets even took Dallas Clark out of the game, but still allowed 30 points.

So now the Pats have lots to consider. As always, they need to defend Indy’s passing game. And, without Wes Welker for a good chunk of the season, they must find a way to pass on the Jets’ revamped defense. Belichick is suddenly left with the challenge of competing against arguably the best offense in football as well as the best defense if the Pats have designs of winning another title next year.

Impossible? No, no, no. Not with Belichick. But the Pats of 2009 showed vulnerability on both sides of the ball against elite competition, and watching how Belichick intends to fit it all will be a fascinating exercise.

Will the Pats finally invest in a pass rusher, be it via free agency (Julius Peppers, who is visiting with the Bears?) or through the draft? In the absence of Welker, will they look to make their tight end (Greg Olsen?) a bigger part of the offense? What will become of Kevin Faulk, who is now free to entertain offers from other teams? Will Belichick dare to pursue a big-name receiver via trade (Brandon Marshall?) or again opt for free agency, be it for an accomplished veteran (Derek Mason?) or a relatively unheralded complementary piece (Kevin Walter?). And how much faith do the Pats have in recent draft selections, from linebackers Shawn Crable and Tyrone McKenzie to wide receiver Brandon Tate to defensive backs Darius Butler and Patrick Chung?

For all of those who believe that last season was a "transition year" for the Pats, the potential turnover in this club could be just as great. Though the Jets cut Thomas Jones and Lito Sheppard – the latter is now replaced by Cromartie – New York has relatively few holes and/or questions in its starting units. Save for restricted free agent Leon Washington, the Jets’ key players on offense and defense all will return. Shonn Greene effectively had replaced Jones by season’s end and the Jets placed the highest tender on wide receiver Braylon Edwards earlier this week.

Meanwhile, the Patriots have holes at an array of positions, which is not necessarily worrisome in and of itself. It all depends on how the Patriots fill them – and in what order. For the architect of any team, there are never more options available than on the first day of free agency, when teams can sign and trade for veterans while continuing to prepare for the draft. Answers are scattered about the landscape like puzzle pieces spread across a table. Some people like to start at the corners; others like to start in the middle.

In 2006, during a season that ultimately delivered the Patriots to the AFC title game, Belichick was asked during one of his weekly press conferences about the challenge of game-planning on a week-to-week basis, the process involved in creating a weekly blueprint, about whether he enjoyed, for lack of a better term, puzzles. The coach paused and nodded, offering the most succinct explanation possible.

"That’s what coaching is," he said.

And that challenge now starts in earnest.

Didn’t you want more? Didn’t you hope for something better? Didn’t you expect the Celtics to come out with a vengeance after losing to the Nets, the Bruins to begin the homestretch of their season the way they played much of last year?

In Boston these days, the disappointment never seems to cease.

So maybe it’s time to lower the expectations.

Three days after a home loss to what could be the worst team in NBA history, the Celtics last night worked awfully hard for a five-point victory over the moribund Detroit Pistons. Meanwhile, the Bruins blew yet another late-game lead – on the eve of the annual trading deadline no less – and skunked their way to a 4-1 loss against a Montreal Canadiens outfit with whom Boston is competing for one of the final playoff spots in the Eastern Conference.

Maybe there’s a reason why we frequently refer to our winter teams as the B’s and C’s. Maybe it’s because even an A- now seems so difficult to attain.

Leaving open the possibility that things can always change in an instant, reality now seems to be dawning on what has been a breathtaking Boston sports landscape. Beginning with the Patriots' Super Bowl win in early 2002, Boston teams won six championships in slightly more than six years. Additionally, there were a few near-misses (the 2003 and 2008 American League Championship Series, an undefeated 2007 NFL regular season). We had such an extraordinary run of success in this region that anything less than a championship has seemed entirely unfulfilling, which is the danger that comes with winning so frequently in such a short period of time.

In 2009, the reality was that the Bruins, Celtics, Red Sox and Patriots all qualified for the playoffs. And yet, as the year closed, one couldn’t help but get the feeling that all four clubs were moving farther from a championship, not closer.

Spoiled? You bet we’re spoiled. (Some of us more than others.) And as is often the case with everything, coping with the reality has as much to do with perspective as it does with the reality itself. Instead of expecting championships, maybe we should demand nothing more than steady growth and maximum effort, though with the Bruins and Celtics, there have been occasions to question the latter at various points this season.

Of course, that leads to an assortment of philosophical questions, some of which are difficult to answer: if we lower our expectations for our teams, is that letting them off the hook? In a place like Boston, which is now among the biggest and most successful sports markets in America, shouldn’t we demand excellence a regular basis given the money invested in our teams and the correlating prices in tickets? At what point do we become too accepting of failure – or too demanding of success?

For the moment, let’s hold off on the Bruins, whose case is far different than that of the Patriots, Red Sox or Celtics. Those three teams all have won conference or league championships since the start of the 2005 calendar year. Overall, the Patriots and Red Sox have been as successful as (or more than) any other team in their respective leagues, and those clubs have made it quite clear that they prioritize an extended run at success.

Whether that philosophy truly works is entirely open to debate – see the Atlanta Braves of the 1990s or, for the matter, the Bruins of the 1980s – but let’s all give them their due. The specific odds may change on a year-to-year basis, but the Red Sox and Patriots always seem to be in the game at the end. And as long as they win a championship or two every five or 10 years, there really is not much reason to complain.

As for the Celtics, we knew the terms when Danny Ainge made his deals with the devil during the spring and summer of 2007. Time was precious. The Celtics subsequently went out and won a championship immediately, sating a hunger that had existed here for more than 20 years. If the Celtics don’t win the championship this year, fine. We can live with that. The far more disturbing part of this season is that the Celtics are deteriorating so rapidly that the 2007-08 championship is beginning to feel like some cheap one-night stand.

With an aging roster, the biggest question for Ainge right now is whether he can find a way to extend this window the way the Patriots and Red Sox have.

As for the Bruins, their fans are tired of waiting. Team officials have made it quite clear that they would not overpay for help at this trading deadline, but the appropriately named B’s – after all, haven’t they been a B to a B+ team for the last 38 years? – have not won a Stanley Cup since 1972. Yesterday, the defending champion Pittsburgh Penguins executed a deal for Toronto’s Alexei Ponikarovsky, who has as many goals as anyone on the Bruins. Meanwhile, Ilya Kovalchuk got traded from Atlanta to New Jersey for what seemed like a very modest collection of talent. Bostonians cannot question the commitment of Red Sox, Patriots and Celtics management the way they can the Bruins, which means there is pressure on the B’s to prove not that that they are intent on winning a championship, but obsessed with winning one.

Are things that bad here? Of course not. The disturbing part of the last year is that the Red Sox, Patriots and Celtics all have regressed enough that they cannot beat elite competition, slipping into something of a competitive purgatory; they’re better than the poor and average teams, not quite as good as the championship-caliber ones. Assuming you believe that there is an ebb and flow to professional sports, the Red Sox, Patriots and Celtics all could be a move or two away from a championship – depending on the level of optimism you wish to apply.

In the much bigger picture, Boston remains one of the more successful sports cities in America. We don’t have any real dogs here and recently we have won our share. The one issue with winning is that it leaves you no room to grow, and no title is ever as gratifying as the first. And yet, there is still a considerable distance to fall back to place where no one wants to be.

After all, we’ve been there.

Assorted observations from a weekend of winter games …

Everyone seems to be beating up NHL commissioner Gary Bettman, but let’s be fair: comparing Olympic hockey to the pro game here is like comparing the World Series to a regular season Triple-A game. The Olympic hockey tournament was a positively captivating, compelling,and downright riveting affair right through the overtime sessions of yesterday’s gold medal game, but that is what you get when you whittle down rosters and the schedule.

After all, the NHL playoffs never have lacked for drama. It’s the regular season that puts us to sleep. No viewer in his right mind longed for a fight during the Olympics, yet the games were so wonderfully entertaining that it was impossible to turn the station. The NHL simply cannot match that product or come remotely close to it given the number of teams and the length of the season, so comparing the two is entirely pointless.

Should the NHL continue to allow its players to participate in the Olympics?Of course it should, if for no other reason than the folks in Des Moines now know who Ryan Miller is. Whether those same folks become fans of the Buffalo Sabres is entirely debatable, which is why the NHL has it doubts about sending its players halfway around the world to play the 2014 Olympic Games in Russia. The league is likely to concede on this point eventually,because we all know what the Olympics mean to the players -- it showed -- but can we stop with the notion that the NHL could somehow duplicate the quality of play?

It’s an entirely different scenario when the best players in the world congregate to play a half-dozen games each over the span of two weeks.

If you have come to the conclusion that Celtics players simply do not give a darn anymore, you’d have every right. Saturday’s loss to the Nets may have left Kevin Garnett "disgusted," but the truth is that the Celtics have been a borderline disgrace for a while now. The C’s are 13-16 in their last 29 games since a 23-5 start, and blaming that record on injuries or age has become an excuse.

The Nets have six wins this year folks. Six. Before Saturday, they were 3-27 on the road. One can wonder if Saturday’s defeat might awaken the Celtics from what appears to have become a fatal case of apathy, but this team seems to respond to nothing. In case you missed it, vice president of basketball operations Danny Ainge all but called out his players in Gary Washburn’s story late last week before the Celtics then went out and effectively mailed it in against the Nets.

At this stage, one can only wonder if the Celtics got fat and happy after winning their 17th title and have decided that they do not need to accomplish anything anymore. And we don’t mean that as an indictment on Ainge and Doc Rivers so much as we do on the players, who seem to be playing with no shame.

That said, Ainge had his chance to trade Ray Allen -- and he missed it.

Now that the NFL is considering a change to its overtime rules in playoff games, we can’t help but ask: did Brett Favre have anything to do with this? According to recent remarks made by NFL spokesman Greg Aiello, the league will discuss a change to the overtime rules next month. Essentially, the change would require a team to score at least six points to win a postseason game – either via two field goals or a touchdown – eliminating the conservative approach that allows a team to play for a field goal after winning the coin toss.

Lest anyone forget, the eventual Super Bowl champion New Orleans Saints defeated the Minnesota Vikings by a 31-28 count in the most recent NFC Championship Game. The Saints won the game only after a colossal blunder by Favre at the end of regulation. The Saints subsequently won the coin toss for the overtime period and drove for a game-winning field goal, leaving a helpless Favre to only watch from the sideline.

Under the new rules, had the Saints managed only three points, Favre would have had at least one chance to take his team down the field for a touchdown to win the game. The obvious idea is to prevent the coin flip from becoming a determining factor and to encourage teams to play for touchdowns, in much the same way that NHL went to a three-point system to prevent the strategy of playing for a tie.

True story: last year, when discussing Casey Kelly, a member of the Red Sox organization likened him, on a very rough level, to Greg Maddux. By that, the evaluator was implying that Kelly has uncanny command of his pitches for a young man his age, which is why Kelly became the most valuable prospect in the Boston system during the 2009 season.

Kelly has no chance of making this team out of camp because he is still early on in his development, but he will pitch the Sox’ spring opener against Northeastern on Wednesday. The Red Sox now seem to follow a very deliberate path with regard to developing players -- especially pitchers -- and it is not at all unreasonable to assume that Kelly could make a very brief appearance in Boston at some point this summer to give him a taste of the big leagues.

Remember: during the Theo Epstein Era, the Red Sox have brought up everyone from Abe Alvarez to Justin Masterson to give them some indoctrination to the big leagues. If Kelly has a good year, there is no reason he could not appear for a makeup game or doubleheader.

This should hardly come as a shock, but the Bruins don’t need to make a trade solely to improve their team; they need to make one for their fans, too. The B’s are young and relatively talented, and general manager Peter Chiarelli has a stockpile of draft picks thanks largely to the Phil Kessel deal. This Bruins season was the most highly anticipated one in years, and the B’s cannot let this occasion slip by without a move or two, regardless of how they view this current roster.

Maybe the Bruins are legitimate Cup contenders. Maybe they are not. At this stage, it is still hard to tell. But this spring will mark the 38th anniversary of the Bruins’ last championship, and fans here long ago tired of the rebuilding process.

This team has been rebuilt.

Now it needs to be fortified.

The Celtics knew they were beaten in the fourth quarter, so Glen Davis, Kendrick Perkins, Ray Allen, Rajon Rondo, and Kevin Garnett watched from the bench. (Jim Davis/Globe Staff)

Beyond the final buzzer, in the hallway that leads from the home bench at TD Garden to the locker room of the most accomplished franchise in NBA history, there was silence. The Celtics walked in single file, heads hung, their egos and spirits dampened by a 108-88 beating by what is now the best team in basketball.

Minutes later, Kevin Garnett’s head was still hanging as he answered questions in a customary post-game briefing, his eyes all but fixed on the table before him. Head coach Doc Rivers entered the room and immediately began taking questions, forgoing any opening statement in defense of a team that now seems both defenseless and indefensible.

"We feel like we have to go through them," Rivers said of the Cleveland Cavaliers, who outscored the Celtics by a 31-point margin in the final 24:18 last night. "It’s like I told the guys before the game: For us to get what we want, we have to go through them. And for them to get what they want, they have to go through us."

Well guess what.

The Cavs just did.

Oh, this is still the regular season, to be sure, but let us not delude ourselves any longer. To win another championship banner in this rapidly closing era of the new Big Three, the Celtics will need something close to a miracle. There may soon come a time when we will further wonder whether Danny Ainge should have strapped some dynamite to the Celtics roster last week, when he instead swapped Eddie House for Nate Robinson in what now seems like a classic case of rearranging the furniture.

With or without Paul Pierce, the Celtics had a chance to win this game. They had the chance to create further doubt in both LeBron James and a Cavs team that had not won in Boston since the reign of Al Jefferson. Instead, the Celtics self-destructed in their worst home loss since March 7, 2007, the date of a 111-80 defeat to the Houston Rockets in what was a 24-58 season. During the ensuing summer, Ainge flipped over the roster by bringing Garnett and Ray Allen to Boston, facilitating a 66-16 regular season that ultimately delivered precisely 82 wins, counting postseason play, as well as well as Banner 17.

But now? Now the Celtics continue to look like a shell of that team, devoid of appetite, quickness, mystique. There is just nothing much to fall back on at the moment. The Celtics raced out of the gate last night behind the stellar play of point guard Rajon Rondo, who scored or assisted on the Celtics’ first 21 points of the game. Be it the result of Cleveland adjustments or Rondo fatigue – the Celtics went due south the moment Rondo did, particularly in the absence of Pierce.

"The one mistake I absolutely made was keeping him in the whole game," Rivers said of Rondo, who did not come off the floor until there was 2:49 to play. "And I made that decision midway through the second quarter."

Countered James, "We kept Rondo out the paint a little more (in the second half). In the first quarter and first half he did a great job of getting to the paint and breaking our defense down and making a shot for himself or creating for others. We definitely made a conscious effort of trying to lock him down more in the second half.’’

And once that happened, the Celtics went pfft.

Admittedly, drawing bigger picture conclusions from any single is always a dangerous practice. Yet, one can’t help but get the feeling that the Celtics themselves were as discouraged as anyone else following last night’s meltdown. Garnett seemed utterly demoralized, at one point acknowledging that reporters were undoubtedly "tired" of the same answers and then apologizing for it. Rivers seemed profoundly agitated, responding to a question about the Celtics’ inability to close with an uncharacteristically tart reply.

What does Rivers make of blowing all these double-digit leads?

"I don’t," volleyed the coach. "There’s nothing I can do about it; obviously I’d like to improve it. We’d like to be better. But we’re not right now, and we’ve just got to keep working on it. I know what we need to do. But one night it’ll be defense, one night it’ll be offense. So we’ve just got to be more consistent."

In the interim, the Celtics have just 26 games left in the regular season, which is still an ample chunk of the schedule. At the same time, they have played 56 games and are now 13-15 in their last 28 games after going 23-5 in their first 28. The Celtics have dealt with injury, to be sure, but such is life with an older roster. To wit: Youngsters Rondo and Perkins have missed one game between them.

Is this Celtics team capable of doing great things, assuming all planets are in alignment, from Garnett to Pierce to Marquis Daniels and Glenn Davis? Perhaps. There is certainly that chance.

And yet, as the Cavaliers departed the TD Garden last night and the Celtics sat with slumped shoulders, you could not help but get the feeling that one team had climbed over a hump while another had slid farther down a dramatic slope, the distance between them growing. And the light having moved well past dawn.

From Mike Lowell to David Ortiz to Tim Wakefield, Terry Francona stands in the middle of it all. In some ways, the manager of the Red Sox is overseeing a clubhouse in transition, faced with many of the dilemmas no manager wants to encounter.

The 2010 Red Sox have their first official full squad workout of the season today, and Francona once again has one of the better rosters in baseball. He just might not have one of the best ones of his tenure. A fair number of players who have served Francona well over the last six years now stand on relatively unstable ground, caught between the prime of their careers and the seeming end of their time in Boston.

In Wakefield’s case, his spot in the rotation seems unsettled. In Ortiz’ case, the Red Sox probably cannot afford to be especially patient. In Lowell’s case, he is again the odd man out. In Varitek’s case, he has gone from captain and full-time starter to a backup catcher.

None of this is anyone’s fault. But if and when these issues intensify, Francona will be the one left to deal with them.

To this point in Francona’s tenure, let there be no doubt: he is one of the best, if not the best, manager in club history. People skills are his greatest asset. Overall, he has a very strong relationship with general manager Theo Epstein. None of this is a commentary on the job Francona has done so much as it is on the job he will face, particularly if things start to go wrong with a Red Sox team undergoing considerable turnover.

During Francona’s tenure, despite the perception, the Red Sox hardly have been trouble-free. In 2004, Francona’s first season in Boston, he walked into the storm that was Nomar Garciaparra’s deteriorating relationship with the organization. In 2005, while New England experienced a six-month hangover from the '04 title, he physically broke down in the earliest stages of the season. The 2006 Red Sox subsequently self-destructed following a five-game sweep at the hands of the Yankees and nearly dissolved into a mess of finger-pointing before Francona aggressively grabbed the wheel. The 2008 season featured the end of the tumultuous tussle with Manny Ramirez before last year’s end-of-season difficulties.

Only the wire-to-wire 2007 season stands out as a relative walk in the park, and rest assured that one wasn’t a picnic, either.

But this? This could be a headache from Day 1. Former Red Sox manager Jimy Williams once shook his head when discussing the challenge of dealing with veteran players because he regarded many of them as complacent and possessing a feeling of entitlement. Just ask Dante Bichette. Williams loved young players because they generally took instruction and played hard in hopes of proving themselves, and those players forever will be grateful to him. Just ask Varitek.

But now, for perhaps the first time in his career as Sox manager, Francona faces lineup decisions before the season even begins. Given the issues at the bottom of the Boston lineup, he cannot afford to be too patient with Ortiz, especially if Lowell is still on the bench. Lowell already is dissatisfied with his role – and has been since the middle of last season. Wakefield wants to be in the rotation to start the year. All of those stances are understandable given the contributions each of those men has made to the Red Sox, and yet Francona may be faced with the reality of having to tell each man something he does not want to hear.

And have I mentioned the second-guessing that will ensue if Mike Cameron fails to play well in center field if Jacoby Ellsbury shines in left? And what will happen if the Red Sox have trouble scoring runs while continuing to forgo the sacrifice bunt?

What will happen here is what always does when the Red Sox begin to struggle: everyone will blame the manager.

For all that the Red Sox have accomplished during Francona’s six-year tenure – five appearances in the playoffs, four trips to the American League Championship Series, two world titles – his best managing job may have come in 2006, the only time during his Sox career that there was no fall baseball in Boston. In August, David Wells threw up his hands in disgust after Keith Foulke blew a lead and Mike Timlin later blamed the offense, transgressions of team etiquette that sent Francona into orbit. The team subsequently traveled to the West Coast and called a team meeting, where he delivered the following message in no uncertain terms.

Enough of the nonsense. If we’re going to lose, we’re going to lose with dignity.

The infighting stopped.

This year, as the Red Sox prepare to take the field for the first time as a unit, there are already the underpinnings of unrest. Francona has shown in the past that he is fully capable of dealing with it. And yet, as the Red Sox enter what seems like a please-pardon-our-appearance phase of their evolution, the manager needs them to get off to a good start as much as anyone.

After all, if things go wrong, he stands to end up with the worst headache.

"Sometimes I worry that we might be vulnerable to a really good right-handed pitcher with a good breaking ball."

-- Theo Epstein

Ditto for me.

In fairness to the accomplished general manager of the Red Sox, there was more to that quote. Asked by Globe columnist Dan Shaughnessy about his concerns for the 2010 Red Sox, what Epstein actually said over the weekend was this:

"Every year’s club has something that keeps you up at night. Sometimes I worry that we might be vulnerable to a really good right-handed pitcher with a good breaking ball. We have more right-handed hitters than we’ve had in the past. Certain guys' approaches are a little more vulnerable to guys with power stuff and a good breaking ball."

Nonetheless, the general point remains the same. The Red Sox aren’t the same offensive team they have been, particularly against right-handed pitchers, who make up roughly 2/3 of all starting rotations throughout the major leagues. Look it up. In the American League last season, the teams with the four best records against right-handed pitching all made the playoffs. In the National League, all four playoff teams finished in the top five against righties. The lone exception was the San Francisco Giants, who won more games overall (88) than any non-playoff team in the game.

Get the picture? Winning in the major leagues starts with your ability to beat right-handed pitching because that’s what you’re going to face the majority of the time. For the Red Sox, the best barometer for their championship hopes may rest in their ability to beat right-handed pitching on the road because of the tremendous advantage Fenway Park affords them. Last season, the Sox went 25-27 against right-handers on the road, which doesn’t sound so bad until you consider that eight of their victories came against the wretched Baltimore Orioles.

That means they went 17-27 on the road, against right-handed starters, versus any team but the Orioles.

Yuck.

Here’s a quick breakdown of how the Sox performed at home and on the road versus left-handed and right-handed pitching last year, which should tell you everything you need to know:

Vs. LHP
Avg. OBP Slg. OPS
Home .274 .352 .445 .797
Road .274 .364 .460 .824

Vs. RHP
Avg. OBP Slg. OPS
Home .288 .370 .518 .888
Road .249 .329 .393 .712

Know what this all means? It means the 2009 Red Sox couldn’t beat right-handed pitching when they didn’t have Fenway Park (or the Orioles) to bail them out. It means that David Ortiz and Jason Varitek continued to deteriorate, that J.D. Drew alone isn’t a game-changing factor. It means that they didn’t have right-handed hitters (with, perhaps, the exception of Kevin Youkilis and, to an extent, Jason Bay) with all-field power. It means that right-handers with good breaking balls effectively neutralized Youkilis, Bay and Dustin Pedroia by pitching them away, surrendering singles or doubles instead of doubles or homers.

On paper, this team doesn’t look much better offensively. Bay is gone, replaced by Adrian Beltre and/or Mike Cameron, more right-handed bats with dead pull power who are vulnerable to off-speed pitches away. Ortiz' OPS against right-handers was .828 last season, down from .921 in 2008 and 1.171 in 2007. (Talk about a disturbing trend.) Victor Martinez should be an enormous improvement over Varitek in the lineup, but as Epstein noted, the Sox are indeed more right-handed overall than they were a year ago. (This further magnifies the importance of re-signing the switch-hitting Martinez.)

First, the good news: The consummate right-hander with a good breaking ball is Roy Halladay, who no longer makes his home in the American League East or, for that matter, the American League. (Halladay had a 2.79 ERA and limited the Sox to a .220 average in four games last year, though he went just 2-2.) The Yankees have two-left-handed starters, C.C. Sabathia and Andy Pettitte, and right-hander Joba Chamberlain was a mental mess at year’s end, though he does possess the combination of fastball-breaking ball to give the Sox fits.

Now, the bad news: Yankees newcomer Javier Vazquez -- he of the good breaking ball -- faced the Sox once last year and completely shut them down. Kevin Millwood, who beat the Sox twice, now pitches for the Orioles. New York’s A.J. Burnett and Tampa’s Matt Garza are power right-handers with good breaking balls, and the projected Tampa rotation has just one lefty (David Price). All of those pitchers are in the American League East, where, thanks to unbalanced scheduling, the Red Sox will play nearly half their games.

Over the last two postseasons, the Red Sox have batted .224 as a team. In 2008, Garza drove them absolutely batty in the AL Championship Series. Last year, John Lackey (a special welcome to Boston!) and Jered Weaver positively manhandled them in the AL Division Series. The Sox' only offense in the ALDS came in Game 3, when the Angels just happened to throw a left-handed starter, Scott Kazmir, before Sox closer Jonathan Papelbon imploded in the ninth inning.

Of course, Opening Day is still weeks away and the Sox haven’t played even a spring game yet.

But if you have any doubts that the Red Sox need a power left-handed bat in the middle of their lineup -- Adrian Gonzalez anyone? -- you clearly haven't been noting what even Theo Epstein sometimes ponders while staring at the ceiling.

Line 'em up, roll 'em out, let the preparations begin anew. The equipment truck leaves today. Spring training begins in one week. The Red Sox are due to open the regular season in precisely 51 days against the reigning world champion New York Yankees.

So what do we have here? At the very least, the Red Sox are a contender again. As long as the Sox are run by the group headed by owner John Henry, that is not likely to change. During the eight-year span of Henry’s ownership, the Red Sox have averaged slightly more than 94 wins per season and made the playoffs six times. Team payrolls have never been higher than during the first part of this millennium, the strongest possible evidence of an organizational commitment to winning.

So why the concern about this year’s club? That answer rests in the leadoff spot of our annual line up of questions entering camp:

1. Have the Red Sox improved since the end of last season?

Pitching and defense, pitching and defense, pitching and defense. Tired of hearing it yet? Over the last two postseasons, the Red Sox have batted .224. They have looked more like the Oakland A’s of the late 1990s than the New York Yankees of the 1920s – capable of exploiting bad teams but exposed by good pitching. The world titles of 2004 and 2007 have changed our expectations here. Nobody ever said life was fair.

Now the real question: as constituted, can this team win a championship? Once the Sox get past the No. 4 spot in the batting order, the offense fills out with questions. What will David Ortiz give them? J.D. Drew? Mike Cameron, Adrian Beltre and Marco Scutaro? The Red Sox spent a lot of time talking about bridges and 2012 during the offseason, which is fine with regard to the farm system. But isn’t the point of having both money and a player development system that you can use one to support the other?

That brings us to…

2. Do the Red Sox have a fear of commitment?

On the one hand, they gave John Lackey a five-year, $82.5 million contract despite elbow issues in the early part of each of the last two seasons. On the other, they dug in their heels on Jason Bay, for whom they had a greater need. The Red Sox obviously have the right to sign whomever they want – and for how much – but they’ve been sending out mixed signals for a while now.

Consider: they blew away the field on Daisuke Matsuzaka by anywhere from $10-$15 million (purely on his rights), then stopped short by the same amount when it came time to close a deal on Mark Teixeira. Drew got a five-year offer – albeit with protection language – but Bay did not get more than two years guaranteed. The Sox seem to quibble over details on select deals, which seems paradoxical for an organization that generally operates with the bigger picture in mind.

Meanwhile, the lineup has suffered. What gives?

3. Is this the best rotation in baseball?

If everyone stays healthy – and that is true for every team - there is simply no question. The Red Sox have not had a group like this since they entered the 2004 campaign with a group that included Pedro Martinez, Curt Schilling, Derek Lowe, and a young Tim Wakefield. That year, Sox starters won more games (73) than those of any team but the St. Louis Cardinals (74). Of course, those two clubs met in the World Series.

As much as some of us may lament the offense, the Lackey signing was obviously huge -- for the short term and the long. He was the best pitcher available this winter and gives the Sox great firepower in the rotation. He opens up the possibility of using Clay Buchholz as trade bait. He gives the Sox insurance (a la Schilling in 2004), depending on what they elect to do with Beckett. Let’s not pull any punches here: no matter how curious the length of the contract, we all like the Lackey move.

One thing to keep an eye on: given unbalanced scheduling, will Lackey be as good in the AL East as he was in the cotton-candy AL West? Against the Yankees, he is 5-7 with a 4.66 ERA in his career.

4. What will become of Josh Beckett?

Excellent question. Like Martinez in 2004, Beckett is entering the final year of his contract. Like Martinez, he has some history of shoulder problems. The market for front-line pitching has been clearly established this winter – something in the range of five years and $80 million – and it will be interesting to see if the Red Sox are willing to commit to a second pitcher on those terms.

As colleague Nick Cafardo pointed out recently, the difference between Beckett and Lackey is that the former has had shoulder issues, the latter elbow problems. From a team’s perspective, shoulder injuries are far more worrisome. No matter what the Red Sox say publicly, the skids certainly look greased for Beckett’s departure, which could make for an interesting scenario. Beckett is unlikely to make an issue of his status, but keep an eye on it, particularly with regard top his health and performance.

Remember: his earning power could be affected greatly if he has any significant health issues.

5. Beyond Beckett, are there any contract issues to monitor?

Absolutely. His name is Victor Martinez.

Like Beckett, Martinez is entering the final year of his contract. Given the long-term concerns about the offense – the Sox are in something of a developmental gap – Martinez seems to have particular value to the club, for an assortment of reasons. He is a switch-hitter. He can help them, in some capacity, at three positions (catcher, first base, designated hitter). Given the expiring contracts of Jason Varitek, Mike Lowell and David Ortiz – as well as Kevin Youkilis’ ability to move across the infield – Martinez seems like an obvious, perfect fit to remain in Boston.

Here’s the problem: Bay seemed like an obvious fit to remain and he is now gone. With the exception of Varitek and Lowell – the first made it a priority to remain in Boston, the second has been all but pushed out the door for three straight offseasons – the Red Sox generally have signed the players they wanted to well before this stage. Martinez’ value could very well depend on whether the Sox view him as a catcher or something else, which could make the negotiation complicated.

Regardless, spring training is a critical time. If the Sox and Martinez have not made significant progress on a deal before the start of the season, one must assume that he will be headed for free agency – and we know how that turned out with Bay.

6. What are the chances for a significant midseason trade?

That all depends on your perspective.

Give general manager Theo Epstein credit for this much: generally speaking, he has excelled at identifying needs and filling them during the year. During his tenure, in-season acquisitions have included, among others, Byung-Hyun Kim, Scott Williamson, Orlando Cabrera, Dave Roberts, Tony Graffanino, Bobby Kielty, Bay, Victor Martinez, Alex Gonzalez and Billy Wagner. All of those players have addressed needs or issues, big or small.

This year, the question concerns what the Red Sox have left to trade. If the Sox are to acquire someone like Padres first baseman Adrian Gonzalez, it’s hard to imagine a deal of the like taking place without Buchholz being involved. Beyond that, the team’s ability to make deals may depend on the continued development of players in the lower levels, though many are the same players the Sox hope will help them in Boston come 2012.

The bottom line: at the moment, the Sox don’t look like they have a lot of flexibility to deal. The minor-league system is a little thin and the payroll is high. The last time the Sox were in a position comparable to this was in 2006, when Epstein essentially did nothing at the deadline while the Yankees added Bobby Abreu. The Sox missed the playoffs, but won the World Series the next year.

Hmmm. Maybe this really is a bridge year?

7. Who are the biggest question marks in the Red Sox' lineup?

Generally speaking, anyone not named Pedroia, Martinez or Youkilis.

Dustin Pedroia, Victor Martinez, and Kevin Youkilis are known commodities. In the No. 2, 3 and 4 spots of the batting order, the Sox have highly skilled .300 hitters who are tough outs. All three produce runs in one form or another. It’s the other six spots that should make you a little nervous.

Jacoby Ellsbury had a rock solid year last season, so let’s give him the benefit of the doubt for now. The Sox have bigger areas to worry about, starting with designated hitter. Ortiz may be the single greatest variable on the team given the trick-or-treat nature of last season. Independent of the final numbers, consider this: in 14 games over the last two postseasons, the man who was once Senor Octobre has five RBI while batting .164 with nearly twice as many strikeouts (17) as hits (nine). He hasn’t been anything close to the same guy.

Ortiz’s problems last year put additional emphasis on Drew, who is a perfectly acceptable (albeit very expensive) No. 6 or No. 7 hitter. But given Drew’s potential for lapses in productivity, Beltre and Cameron will need to offer some consistency, which is something neither ever really has done. Scutaro should improve the offense at shortstop, but, again, he has no real history of consistency.

Assuming he is with the club, a potential X factor here is Lowell, who could give the Sox yet another option if someone fails. In fact, the more you think about it, the more you cannot help but wonder if the Sox are taking the same approach with their lineup this season that they took with their pitching staff last season, when they brought in quantity (John Smoltz, Brad Penny) to address their shortage in quality.

8. Does the bullpen prompt any concern at all?

It’s the bullpen. There’s always concern.

Last season, the Red Sox finished second in the American League in bullpen ERA. Their relievers also had the second-best winning percentage in the league. Takashi Saito and Billy Wagner have since moved on, losses that might not seem so great but that could grow in significance depending on the development of Ramon Ramirez and Daniel Bard.

Obviously, Bard is a huge key here. As awesome as he was at times last year, he had difficulty against left-handed batters (.866 OPS) while struggling some late in the year (a 6.50 ERA beginning Aug. 4) and in close games. Beyond Jonathan Papelbon, Hideki Okajima is still the most reliable man the Sox have – and by a significant margin. The depth of the rotation should take some of the workload off the bullpen, but keep an eye on the seventh inning, in particular. To negotiate the final third of the game, the Sox will need consistency from someone other than Papelbon and Okajima.

9. All joking aside, is the defense really that good?

In a word, yes.

Assuming Scutaro is as solid as everyone suggests he is – and we’ll still need to see for ourselves – the Sox have Gold Glovers at first, second, and third base as well as in center field. Drew is as solid as they come. Many of us still need to see if Cameron is anything close to what he once was, but in a worst-case scenario, Ellsbury can always move back to center. Don’t be surprised if this club plays defense as well as the record-setting 2006 Sox.

Here is the, er, catch: the defense behind the plate could be a huge weakness. Last year, Varitek and Victor Martinez both had trouble throwing and the pitchers did a poor job of holding runners. The Sox were positively wretched against opposing running games, allowing both the most steals in baseball (151) while throwing out the lowest percentage of base stealers (13.0). What that means, in short, is that opponents quite literally ran at will, which was a much bigger problem than anyone wanted to acknowledge.

The bottom line: the Sox should excel at keeping opposing runners (and their own?) off the bases this season. But when opponents get on, expect them to run.

Then again, if there are fewer base runners at Fenway, could this all translate into faster games?

This year, the role of Jason Bay will be played by Victor Martinez, yet another midseason acquisition now entering the final year of his contract. By all indications, the Red Sox need him. And yet, there is simply no way to predict which way this will go.

Red Sox pitchers and catchers are due to officially report to Fort Myers, Fla., in 11 days, but let it be known that baseball season has begun. Already, there are members of the Sox working out at the team’s minor-league complex in Fort Myers. The Sox will formally commence workouts late next week and open their spring schedule on March 3 against Northeastern and Boston College, all in anticipation of the April 4 regular season opener against the New York Yankees at Fenway Park.

So what do you think, Sox followers? Will Victor be signed? Or won’t he?

Your guess is as good as anyone’s.

For what it is worth, according to one baseball source, there is no indication thus far that the Sox and Martinez have begun serious discussions on a contract extension beyond 2010. That may (or may not) mean anything. The offseason baseball calendar often follows a very deliberate path, teams negotiating with, in order, free agents, arbitration-eligible players and players with fewer than three years of experience. Veterans entering the final year of their contracts often are put off until spring training, allowing clubs to use Opening Day as some sort of deadline.

As was the case with Bay, Martinez falls into the last category. The big question now is whether the Sox will secure him to a long-term contract extension before Opening Day or whether they will send him the way of Bay amid speculation about his health, defense or both.

You think the Bay negotiations got messy at the end? Wait until the Martinez talks hit the propaganda stage. Late last season, like Bay, Martinez turned 31 years old. He is a very good offensive player who bats from both sides of the plate, hits for average and produces runs. Depending on what you believe, Martinez is either a catcher, first baseman or designated hitter, though the Sox already have endorsed him as their starter behind the plate for this year, which won’t help them at the bargaining table.

Or, depending on Martinez’ defensive performance, maybe it will.

Seriously, where do you begin with a guy like this? Without question, Martinez’ agent, Alan Nero, is likely to keep a close eye on the Joe Mauer negotiations for obvious reasons. Mauer will set the ceiling for all catchers in the game. Over the last five years, Martinez’ offensive output as a catcher is in the same ballpark as Mauer and New York Yankees backstop Jorge Posada. Mauer has two huge factors over both of those players – defense (two Gold Gloves) and age – and no one will argue against Mauer as currently being the best catcher in the game.

The question will be where Martinez fits in, assuming the Sox truly regard him as a solution behind the plate.

For what it’s worth, the Sox will have plenty of money to spend at the end of this season given the expiring contracts of, among others, David Ortiz, Mike Lowell, Josh Beckett, Julio Lugo, Jason Varitek, and perhaps Adrian Beltre, among others. The flexibility of Kevin Youkilis (third base?) and the potential departure of Ortiz could leave them with openings at both first base and DH, both positions Martinez can fill. Given the shortage of offensive talent in the Boston farm system – remember, owner John Henry said the next wave of talent won’t be coming until 2012 – the Sox will have an even greater need for a middle-of-the-order bat than they already do.

Of course, we thought the same thing when Bay came up for discussion. As it turned out, the Sox dug in their heels on protective language in the event Bay had any injuries to his knees, a stance that ultimately blew up the deal and led to the Sox acquiring, among others, Mike Cameron, Jeremy Hermida and Adrian Beltre for roughly $20 million, about $5 million more than they would have paid Bay this season under the terms of a four-year, $60 million contract. In case you’re wondering, the Sox could have had Bay, Beltre and John Lackey for about $4-$5 million more than they are projected to pay now.

By the way, Martinez missed much of the 2008 season with an elbow injury, something that is certain to come up in negotiations. On the one hand, the Sox have given Martinez the responsibility of catching this year. On the other, come contract time, they are sure to cite Martinez’ problems in throwing out base runners and his overall defensive shortcomings. Based on the contracts of Ortiz, Posada and Mauer, Martinez’ average annual value would seem to fall somewhere between $13 million and, say, $20 million annually, the latter being a projected salary for the incomparable Mauer.

In some ways, this is a big year for the Red Sox, who have seen television ratings and interest wane some over the last two years. They traded Manny Ramirez, then failed to re-sign the man they acquired for him (Bay). For every dyed-in-the-wool Sox loyalist now preaching the tenets of run prevention, pitching and defense, there is a Sox follower disenchanted by a lineup that once again looks suspect. The Sox have whiffed on big bats in each of the last two offseasons, opting for a safer, more balanced portfolio.

Last year, to their credit, the Sox responded to their offseason outcome by acquiring Martinez from the Cleveland Indians for package of prospects. Now he is up for a new deal, too. The Red Sox appear headed for a massive turnover at the end of this season – again, Lowell, Ortiz, Beckett and Varitek are all free agents – and they have long–term needs at an array of positions on the diamond.

And yet, based on history, there is simply no way to know whether the Red Sox will re-sign Victor Martinez to fill any of them.

The second ring makes all the difference in the world, though Peyton Manning already knew that. And as of today, solely with regard to winning, there is no point in comparing Manning to Tom Brady when Peyton is having enough trouble keeping up with his kid brother.

Rest easy, New Englanders. You still hold the trump card over Peyton Manning and the Indianapolis Colts. Yesterday’s 31-17 victory by the New Orleans Saints in Super Bowl XLIV had more to do with coach Jim Caldwell, the Indianapolis receiving corps, and the Indianapolis defense (an oxymoron, in retrospect?) than it did with Manning, but history won’t remember it that way. With the Saints holding a 24-17 lead and with the game on the line, Manning threw a lazy pick-6 to Tracy Porter that effectively ended the NFL season and left Manning looking like the Greg Norman of football.

Norman won major championships, after all, but he could have (and should have) won more. So it is now with Manning, arguably the greatest quarterback of all time, who has played 12 seasons and won four Most Valuable Player awards but managed just one championship.

In all fairness to the quarterback of the Colts, he did not single-handedly lose this game. Far from it. But Manning did not win it, either, particularly when presented the chance at that moment when the truly great quarterbacks forge their legacy.

"Made a great play," Manning told reporters after the game when asked of Porter’s interception and 74-yard return. "Made a great play. Corner made a heck of a play."

And the quarterback did not.

How did the Colts blow this game? Let us count the ways. Indy held a 10-3 lead with scores on each of its first two possessions when Manning came back on the field with 9:34 to go in the first half. The Colts had a third-and-4 from their own 28-yard line when Manning hit a wide open Pierre Garcon on a crossing pattern that would have gone for big yardage were it not for one small fact: Garcon flat-out dropped the ball. The Saints subsequently took control of the ball for the next 6:25 in a drive that changed the complexion of the game.

New Orleans did not score on that possession, but it ultimately did not matter. The Colts ran on their next three plays and again were forced to punt, all but handing the Saints a field goal at the end of the half. A game that might be have been 10-3 (or more) in favor of the Colts instead sat at 10-6, an outcome that grew in magnitude after Sean Payton’s decision to go for an onside kick at the start of the third quarter.

Once the Saints went in for a touchdown and a 13-10 lead, Manning had been on the field for just two series and all of 2:06 from the end of the first quarter to the start of the third. He had thrown two passes – one a completion, the other the drop by Garcon. The Saints had taken complete control of the game.

Nonetheless, professional athletes are paid to win no matter the circumstances, something that Manning knows all too well. The Colts led 17-16 when Manning took over possession and drove Indy to the New Orleans 30 in the fourth quarter, when the Indy drive stalled. Manning faced a third-and-11 from the New Orleans 33 when he elected to throw deep down the middle to Austin Collie, missing the receiver and leaving Matt Stover with a 51-yard field goal attempt when even another five yards might have made all the difference.

The kick – like Manning’s decision-making at one of the more critical points of the game – came up short.

Of course, the interception by Porter ensued shortly thereafter, a play for which the Colts and Manning were as much to blame as Porter and the Saints were to praise. Indianapolis ineptitude invited the Saints back into the game in the second quarter. Colts calamity lost it in the fourth. For all that went wrong for Indianapolis during the first 54 minutes and change at Sun Life Stadium, Manning still had a chance to bring the Colts even (or better) when he trotted onto the field facing a 24-17 deficit with 5:42 left.

For Manning, who finished 31-of-45 for 333 yards, one touchdown, one interception, and a rating of 88.5, the Porter interception forever will remain the play for which this performance is remembered. Maybe that is fair. Maybe that is not. But as Archie’s son and Eli’s brother in addition to being the quarterback of the Colts, Manning long ago learned something that forever every man who has ever played the position will attest to, even Tom Brady.

The quarterback gets much of the credit for winning.

And he gets most of blame for losing, too.

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. – In the paradoxical world of professional sports, we want them all to be team players, yet we judge them individually. We often promote our own agendas while seeking to discredit, diminish, or denounce.

Which is why I’m rooting for Peyton Manning this weekend.

Here in New England, where the Patriots have won more games since the turn of the millennium than any team but the Indianapolis Colts, we hardly qualify as objective. The Pats/Colts rivalry is currently the best in football. We have Tom Brady and they have Manning, a matchup of stars that rivals every pairing from Mantle and Mays to Larry and Magic. Picking between Brady and Manning is fodder for one of the great sports debates of our era, and the truth is that there is no wrong answer.

And yet, largely because we are here and they are there, there are those who will tear down Manning based on the simple fact that he has played on only one Super Bowl winner to date while Brady has played on three.

Can we stop with this nonsense? Please? The admission that Manning and Brady are the consummate peers does not less anything Brady has accomplished (or will accomplish) during his career. The suggestion that Manning is every bit as good (or better) does not qualify as sacrilege, treason, or infidelity. And yet, there remain those who forever try to knock Manning down a peg based on the fact that he doesn’t have as many championships.

Know what drives those kinds of absurdities? Insecurity. My quarterback is better than your quarterback has become the grown man’s version of my brother can beat up your brother, making it an utterly petty, stupid and downright childish debate.

Brady’s greatness is too far cemented to change. The same is true for Manning. We will never know how each might have done in the other’s shoes, the same way we never will know how things might have been different were Ted Williams a member of the Yankees and Joe DiMaggio a member of the Red Sox.

As a New Englander, it’s time to be entirely honest and admit something to yourself: You would have been just as fortunate to have Manning as you are Brady. The guy is that darned good. The most popular argument against Manning in New England concerns Manning’s poor big-game performance during the early stages of his career, an obvious attack point given Brady’s early-career success in the postseason.

Of course, when you get down right down to it, that argument doesn’t really work. Did Manning have a shutdown corner like Ty Law in the way that Brady did? Did he have an even remotely comparable defense? Did he have the same kicker? On the one hand, we here in New England want to celebrate the 2001 Patriots for being introduced as a team before their historic Super Bowl victory over the Rams; on the other, we want to say Brady drove them down the field in a way that Manning never could have, as if the quarterback was entirely responsible.

Talk about hypocrisy. Ask Kevin Garnett about this kind of thinking. Or even LeBron James. Both are consummate team players, having drawn criticism for passing up the final shot in favor of the open shot at various points during his career. Garnett ultimately overcame that overly simplistic nonsense. Sooner or later, presumably, James will, too. (We hope.)

All of this brings us back to Manning, who is now eying his second Super Bowl title, an honor that would silence his critics for good. It’s one thing to win a title; it’s another thing entirely to win multiple ones. Ten quarterbacks in history have won multiple titles, and the list reads like a Who’s Who of NFL history: Joe Montana and Terry Bradshaw (four); Troy Aikman and Brady (three); Bart Starr, Roger Staubach, Bob Griese, John Elway, Jim Plunkett and Ben Roethlisberger (two).

As for Manning, he currently rests in a group with, among others, Jeff Hostetler, Trent Dilfer, Mark Rypien and Brad Johnson. Not a single one of those players ever should be mentioned in the same breath as Dan Marino, whose exclusion from the list of Super Bowl titlists had far more to do with the absence of a defense and/or running game during his career than anything else.

The reason Marino fell short all of those years was because the Dolphins did not have capable teams. The quarterback was the least of their problems.

In the case of Manning, ask yourself this: Had he won a Super Bowl early in his career rather than in the middle, would his reputation be different? Would we perceive him more like much of America now perceives Brett Favre (another Super Bowl winner) or more like we once perceived Alex Rodriguez (as a choker)? Manning has had to work far harder to change his reputation in big games than he did to build it in the first place, something that could change dramatically come the late hours on Sunday.

After all, people won’t be able to say, ``Yeah, but he won only one Super Bowl.’’

When you think about it, "He won only two’’ just doesn’t have the same force.

The buzzwords now are "focus," "spirit," and "camaraderie," which might have been a good sign save for one small fact: the Celtics have been losing more than they have been winning lately. The Celtics of today talk more about what they lack than what they possess, which is often what happens when you just are not good enough.

And so now, regardless of whether Paul Pierce is out for the short-term, long-term, or any length in between, we must wonder exactly who these Celtics are, what they are, where they are going. In today’s Boston Herald, point guard Rajon Rondo speaks of a fractured Celtics locker room, at least relative to the 2007-08 championship season. In a radio interview yesterday on 98.5 The Sports Hub, Celtics vice-president of basketball operations Danny Ainge talked of the club’s inability to focus down the stretch of games, which sounded like a tactful and diplomatic way of saying that his veterans have lost interest in the regular season altogether.

But then, if that is true, doesn’t that suggest the Celtics have the requisite level of talent to win another title this year, in the third season of the new Big Three? And doesn’t that suggest that what the Celtics have now is entirely fixable, be it through trade or a simple attitude adjustment?

For now, know this: With a 30-16 record, the Celtics already have lost as many games as they did during the entire 2007-08 regular season. In fact, in the last 37 days, they have nearly a many losses (11) as they did during their last championship year. Ainge yesterday outright dismissed theories that the Celtics are already too old to win another championship, saying that the team’s breakdowns of late have had a great deal more to do with focus and attitude than with any deterioration in talent.

Given his stance, here’s the question: Do you agree with him? In some ways, Ainge and Rondo sounded disturbingly similar in separate interviews, which cannot help but make you wonder about the nucleus and direction of the Celtics, specifically as it to pertains to their roster.

Let’s back up here for a moment. Three years ago, when Ainge reconstructed the Celtics, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen all had a common goal. As three more of the more talented players in their era, each lacked the validation that can come only with a championship. All three of those players approached the 2007-08 season with a renewed commitment and selflessness, because each stood to gain the same thing: indisputable greatness.

But now? A second title could not possibly mean as much to Garnett, Allen or Pierce – or, for that matter, Rasheed Wallace, a champion in Detroit – as a first. All four of those men have little room left for growth. None of them will ever feel as good about themselves as they did on the night they won their first titles. In the wake of physical setbacks, it would be entirely understandable if Garnett and Pierce, in particular, lost interest in a regular season that now has virtually no meaning to them.

In the wake of that reality, can men like Garnett, Pierce, Allen and Wallace turn it on come playoff time? Will they still care enough to fight through adversity that might have derailed them two years ago were it not for the simple fact that none of them ever had won anything? Or are the Celtics truly too old now – from an emotional and psychological state as much as a physical one – to deal with some of the challenges that every championship team must overcome?

Ainge clearly has his theories. Rondo has his, too. And truth be told, there were significant stretches this season where the Celtics looked like absolute world-beaters, which, in retrospect, might have been the worst thing to happen to them.

Now here’s the worrisome part: whether it be the Red Sox, Patriots, Bruins or Celtics, issues of leadership only seem to come up when a team is losing. People usually start talking about focus and spirit and camaraderie while learning there is simply not enough talent or health (or both) to consistently win games over a long period of time. The great teams overcome the bad stretches and the ordinary teams do not, and now we just need to find out which term describes the Celtics.

With regard to Ainge, there is every chance that he is entirely right about this team. He said yesterday that he has no desire to trade Allen, that he believes this team can win now. All of that suggests he will make a move to help the Celtics some time between now and the annual trading deadline, though Ainge’s faith in his team is hardly the most important question surrounding these Celtics.

The real question is whether the Celtics players believe in themselves as much as he does.

So this is what it has come to. The Bruins, currently mired in 11th place in the Eastern Conference, now have to keep an eye on the wretched Toronto Maple Leafs as much as they do anyone else.

Don’t look now, Bruins followers, but the Toronto Maple Leafs just executed a pair of weekend trades, one which of which brings them tough and talented 24-year-old defenseman Dion Phaneuf, who is signed through 2013-14. That move may or may not turn around what has heretofore been a dreadful season for the Leafs, but it could have significant impact for a Bruins club that currently holds Toronto’s first-round pick in this year’s draft as a result of the Phil Kessel trade.

At the moment, that pick projects to be the No. 2 or No. 3 overall selection, a huge payoff for a Bruins club that also hold Toronto’s first-round pick next year. But if the Phaneuf deal improves the Leafs sufficiently to move Toronto out of the top three in the draft, the Bruins could be left holding the bag in the netherworld between the playoffs and the prime positions in the draft.

Which brings us to general manager Peter Chiarelli.

Suddenly, the heat seems to be turning up on the Bruins general manager to act with regard to his team. The Bruins turned in solid performances against both the Buffalo Sabres and Los Angeles Kings over the weekend … and they had one point to show for it. The B’s carried the play for much of those two games and generated more than their share of scoring opportunities, but they simply could not score and remained on a treadmill to nowhere.

In fact, when Mark Recchi tipped home a David Krejci pass in the third period on Saturday night, it marked the first time the Bruins had held a lead in four games.

A practical man with a Harvard education, Chiarelli now founds himself in a most precarious position. He may have to do something that goes against his nature; he may have to do something purely for the sake of doing it. Last week, Chiarelli told anyone who would listen that he had no intentions of trading the Toronto selection in this year’s draft because of the depth of talent available at the top of the first round. During his weekly segment on 98.5 The Sports Hub, he went so far as to say that current Islanders rookie John Tavares (the No. 1 pick in last year’s draft) might be no better than the No. 4 overall selection in this year’s event.

By the way, Tavares is 19. He has 33 points and 17 goals this year, the latter a total unmatched by any Bruin this season. And dare we even mention that Kessel has the same number?

As encouraging as the Bruins’ efforts were over the weekend, goal-scoring remains a problem of colossal proportions. In the overtime loss to the Kings on Saturday, the Bruins had six chances to score in the shootout and managed just two tallies, by Michael Ryder and Marc Savard. Zdeno Chara, Blake Wheeler, Recchi, and Patrice Bergeron all failed.

For what it’s worth, Chiarelli last week gave no indication that the B’s were close to any deals, be it for Phaneuf, Ilya Kovalchuk or anyone else. To the contrary, Chiarelli suggested that the asking price for all trades was still much too high. (Of course, these things can change quickly.) Regardless, the addition of Phaneuf suggests the Leafs are far closer to being the Bruins than the Bruins are to being, say, the Penguins or Capitals, setting the stage for the kind of scenario that would drive the most loyal Bruins fans absolutely wild.

What if the Bruins do not make the playoffs? And what if the Leafs somehow end up finishing in front of Boston? The end result will have the Bruins picking before the Leafs following the most highly anticipated Bruins season in years, all after trading away their top goal scorer, regardless of whether Kessel wanted to be in Boston.

Of course, there is still a good deal of hockey to be played. The Bruins have seven more games before the Olympic break and 27 more overall – that is about one-third of the season – but the time for Chiarelli to make impact moves is dwindling. The trading deadline is set for just three days after the conclusion of the Olympics, and every game the Bruins play with their current roster is another game without an elite goal scorer.

And it is another game in a season where everything seems to be going so terribly wrong.

Cleaning up on some leftovers while waiting for the start of spring training …

We all understand the Red Sox have a developmental gap in their farm system, but when owner John Henry says that the club is trying to find a way to plug that hole until 2012, he makes it sound like the Red Sox don’t expect to be championship-caliber again until 2012.

OK, so maybe we’re all reading into things too much, most recently when Henry told the Herald’s Michael Silverman last weekend that this offseason presented the Sox with a challenge because their next wave of prospects is two years away. Henry is being completely honest with that assessment, which is a credit to him and to his organization. He’s not just feeding you what you want to hear. But a statement like that also ignores the fact that the Red Sox got themselves into this predicament and that there are multiple ways to build a team.

Translation: the Sox are a big market team. Clubs like Pittsburgh, San Diego, Minnesota and Florida may have to negotiate developmental gaps, but the Red Sox can buy their way through them. That’s the beauty of having both a farm system and considerable resources. Furthermore, the Red Sox are in their current plight partly because they traded away some young players (Nick Hagadone, etc.) and partly because prospects like Lars Anderson and Michael Bowden have taken a downturn in value.

Who’s to say the latter won’t happen again?

The more you look at it, the more you can't help but wonder if John Lackey is here to replace Josh Beckett. The Red Sox simply could not afford to let Beckett walk after this season without having a replacement, and the market next fall might not be as favorable as the one this offseason. So the Sox signed Lackey, assuring them of having at least two front-line starters (Lackey and Jon Lester) in 2011.

All of that brings us to Jason Bay and the curious manner in which the Red Sox negotiated with him. In a recent interview with Rob Bradford of WEEI.com, Bay detailed what we told you here in December – specifically that he and the Red Sox had all but agreed to a four-year deal last summer when the Sox started getting cold feet over concerns about Bay’s long-term health.

In retrospect, the Sox never had a chance of re-signing Bay this offseason, at least not when any team was willing to offer Bay a four-year deal for more than $16 million per season with no strings attached. Will the Red Sox prove right about Bay in the long run? That remains to be seen. In the interim, they have signed a pitcher with some recent elbow difficulty (Lackey) to a five-year deal and reached the point where they seem to be getting downright neurotic about long-term contracts.

In the Sox’ defense, as one longtime major league voice pointed out, the Sox’ stance on "protection" in long-term contracts might have some validity to it. Player contracts have become increasingly difficult to insure in recent years, which means teams must absorb more of the burden in the event of injury. If the Sox are hedging their bets, so be it. At the same time, the club is going to lose out on players like Bay if and when it comes time to bid, meaning the club is excluding itself from competing for some high-level talent at a time when the farm system is sputtering.

Does that make any sense at all?

With regard to defense, we all know that Bay was not Gold Glove material, but can we stop with the suggestion that he was a car crash waiting to happen out there? Some of the same defensive metrics that had Bay rated as one of the worst defensive left fielders in baseball last year had Jacoby Ellsbury rated last among qualifying major league center fielders. Many of us believe that Ellsbury’s speed and athleticism lead people to overrate his skill, but anyone who watched him last year knows he is an adequate center fielder at worst.

The point? Somewhere along the line, baseball’s obsession with quantitative analysis gets to be a little bit much. To their credit, the Red Sox appear to have built a very good (and maybe even great) defensive team on paper this year, but we all know that the great teams have balance. The championship clubs of 2004 and 2007 could hit, run, pitch, and play defense by the time September and October rolled around, explaining why they could win the 2-1 game just as easily as the 8-7 affair.

Admittedly, these Red Sox are not done being built yet.

But amid this avalanche of new-age statistical information, ask yourself this: if the numbers are going to make all of the decisions for you, why do we need GMs and managers anymore?

If I am Peter Chiarelli, this is what I do: I walk into the locker room and I tell the players, in no uncertain terms, that this season is entirely up to them. I tell them Claude Julien will be the coach here for years to come. I tell them that the management of the Bruins will continue to treat this team like a Stanley Cup contender, that help should be coming at some point in the next month.

And then I watch the next three weeks to see if my team has any pride at all.

Let’s make something clear here: nobody seems to be clamoring for Julien to be fired and nobody should be. Somewhere along the line, particularly in the topsy-turvy world of the NHL, firing the coach became some kind of elixir, even at the most peculiar times. In 2000, the first-place New Jersey Devils fired coach Robbie Ftorek and replaced him with Larry Robinson with eight games to play, then went on to win the Stanley Cup. No-nonsense Devils general manager Lou Lamoriello tried the same stunt seven years later and lost in the second round, as good an indication as any that coaching changes can be as predictable as coin flips. The coach he fired then? Claude Julien.

And before anyone issues the reminder that the reigning Stanley Cup champion Pittsburgh Penguins dismissed their coach before turning things around last season, let’s draw a clear distinction between those Penguins and these B’s. Pittsburgh has Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin. The Bruins do not. There is talent and there is talent, and the Bruins have more of the former than they do of the latter.

Philosophically, here’s the problem some of us have with firing a coach: it lets the players off the hook. It excuses their poor performance. It teaches the younger ones, especially, that the solution for substandard play is to transplant the brain when the real issue seems to rest with the heart. It gives them a new start when they really do not deserve one, when they should instead be taught to clean up the mess they have made.

With Julien, in particular, the Bruins don’t seem to have many choices. For starters, the B’s are still paying Dave Lewis. Over the summer, they signed Julien to a multi-year extension that does not begin until next season. Another firing by Chiarelli would require him to stand in Jeremy Jacobs’s office and explain why the Bruins pay coaches like the Red Sox pay shortstops, which would put the heat squarely on the trousers of the Bruins GM.

Beyond that, there is the issue of the players, many of whom are underperforming in what has suddenly become a maddening season. In the last year or so, the Bruins have signed Tim Thomas, Tuukka Rask, Marc Savard, Milan Lucic, and David Krejci, not to mention Julien, to contract extensions. They have a great deal invested in this team. A major shakeup of any kind would be tantamount to a admission of guilt, to a confession that the Bruins have made critical evaluation mistakes.

So we ask: Isn’t it possible that Bruins players have grown a little too comfortable and complacent? Isn’t it possible that they have lost their edge now that they have been handed their money? Isn’t it possible that the Bruins are acting like they have accomplished something when they really have accomplished nothing at all?

Admittedly, injuries have been an enormous part of the problem here. Since the earliest stages of this season, the Bruins have been operating at something less than full capacity. Savard has played in only half the games. Lucic has played in even fewer. During the recent West Coast swing, the Bruins played without Savard, Krejci and Patrice Bergeron, depriving them of the center on their top three lines. The power play stinks. The team has failed to protect leads in the third period. On a disturbing eight occasions this season, the Bruins have lost by three goals or more; last year, they did not suffer a loss of such magnitude until Feb. 10 and finished with just two such defeats overall.

Speaking yesterday on 98.5 The Sports Hub, Bruins vice president Cam Neely effectively dismissed any and all talk of a Julien dismissal, saying "it was a little early’’ for such conjecture. Neely spoke of a Bruins team that lacks confidence and needs its morale rebuilt. The Bruins now have nine games remaining before the Olympics break – the first coming on Friday at Buffalo – and the annual NHL trading deadline is just three days after the Olympics conclude.

Translation: Before he can make any determination on what kind of acquisitions to make, Chiarelli needs to see what kind of character this team has. And he needs to find out now.

Last year, for all intents and purposes, the Bruins coasted through the regular season. They subsequently dusted the Montreal Canadiens in the first round of the playoffs before spanking the Carolina Hurricanes by a 4-1 score in Game 1 of the Eastern Conference semifinals. In retrospect, maybe that was a bad way for the Bruins to start the playoffs because they really haven’t been the same team since. The Bruins fell asleep in Games 2, 3 and 4 of the Carolina series and woke up briefly in Games 5 and 6, which cannot help but make you wonder where the problem with this team resides.

As we all know, you don’t learn about character and heart during the good times.

You learn during the bad times.

And so an entire season of NFL football comes down to three cities: Indianapolis, New Orleans, Miami. For the Patriots and their followers, it’s as if they are being visited by the ghosts of Christmas during a time of critical soul-searching.

Indy, New Orleans, Miami. The Patriots played in all three cities during a span of 22 days from Nov.15-Dec. 6, and the results were damning. The Pats blew a big lead at Indy, got throttled by the Saints, and caved in against the Dolphins. In retrospect, no stretch of the season better encapsulated New England’s problems during the 2009 football season characterized by breakdowns on offense, defense, and the coaching staff.

Nobody here needs to relive those games, though all three had something in common. From Peyton Manning to Drew Brees to Chad Henne, the Pats could not stop the opposing quarterback, proving utterly defenseless against capable passing attacks.

The NFL has completely changed, folks. If we needed it to, the weekend offered further proof. The teams with the better running games and defenses got bounced by the clubs with Arena League mentalities, the Colts and Saints emerging as both symbols of dominance – both were No. 1 seeds – as well as the NFL’s complete metamorphosis into what might as well be known as the Devo era. Who needs a running game? Whip it good.

In the games against the Colts, Saints and Dolphins this year, the Pats went 0-3 while allowing 95 points. Combined, Manning, Brees and Henne – which one of those doesn’t belong? – went 75 for 119 (63 percent) for 1,033 yards, 11 touchdowns, and 3 interceptions. That translates into an average of 344.3 yards and 3.7 passing touchdowns per game, numbers that would produce a whopping 5,509 yards and an absurd 59 touchdown passes over the course of a full season.

All of that only further highlights the Pats’ complete inability to defend the pass – they weren’t just bad, they were historically bad – when even moderately capable teams committed to throwing against them. If the Pats are to reclaim their place at or near the top of the NFL hierarchy, they must dramatically improve their abilities in the passing game on both sides of the ball -- but especially on defense.

With regard to this particular aspect, one can’t help but feel that the Pats have been, at best, inconsistent in their approach. Three years ago at this time, the Pats were coming off a historic loss at Indianapolis in the AFC Championship Game. New England’s answer was to go out and load up on wide receivers, adding Randy Moss, Wes Welker and Donte' Stallworth to the offense. The result was an 18-0 season that ultimately crash landed in the desert in Super Bowl XLII, the nearest of near misses that might have forever altered our thinking.

Here’s the problem: while the Pats have completely sold out to become a passing team on offense, their defense remains focused on stopping the run first. Over the last two years, the absence of a pass rush has been easily the team’s greatest weakness. Anyone who thinks the Pats’ greatest need is anything other than an elite pass rusher didn’t pay attention over the weekend and certainly didn’t pay attention to the 22-day span during the regular season against the Colts, Saints and Dolphins.

When you get right down to it, here’s the only thing the Colts and Saints have over the Patriots on defense: pass rushers. The Colts have both Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis, the latter of whom was a thorn in New England’s side during the meeting between the clubs this season. And two months after rattling Tom Brady with three- and four-man rushes (in front of a makeshift defensive backfield), the Saints yesterday repeatedly had Brett Favre throwing from his heels, right up until he made a fatal mistake.

NFL experts may not regard the Saints and Colts as truly elite defenses, but that is missing the point. Defensively, the Saints and Colts force mistakes by bringing pressure.

As for the Pats, they traded away their two best pass rushers from recent years – Mike Vrabel and Richard Seymour. Unsurprisingly, the large majority of their victories this season came against clubs with no better than an average passing attack. Anytime the Pats faced a team with an average passing attack or better, they proved utterly incapable of forcing mistakes. In retrospect, the playmaking ability (or lack thereof) of the Patriots defense probably had more to do with their inability to force the issue than it did with any personnel deficiencies in their secondary.

As we all know, offense in the NFL now runs through the quarterback more than ever before. Rules changes have helped open the door for rookies like Pierre Garcon and Austin Collie to become central figures on a Super Bowl team. The best way to neutralize such receivers is to get to the quarterback, which makes pass protection and pass rushing the most valuable skills in the game.

The Pats generally did the former this year – at least most of the time - but they were positively wretched when it came to doing the latter.

Assuming you can get past any visceral reaction, enjoy this weekend’s AFC Championship Game. Celebrate it. However much it may pain you to watch two of the Patriots’ chief rivals play for the right to go to the Super Bowl, the football gods are granting you a look at the future.

On Sunday, you get to see what you must beat.

At the risk of urging you to root for the Colts or Jets – we all know how well that went over during the baseball season – the simple truth is that you have no choice this week but to root for our football equivalent to the New York Yankees. Maybe that’s the Colts. Maybe that’s the Jets. Regardless, someone detestable to most Pats fans is going to be hoisting the Lamar Hunt Trophy as champion of the AFC, thereby possessing the right to play in the Super Bowl.

Along the way, Patriots fans will get to see the best the Colts and Jets have to offer, specifically in the forms of Peyton Manning and Darrelle Revis, the former who is the NFL Most Valuable Player and the latter of whom should have been the NFL Defensive Player of the Year.

Let’s start with Manning, who already has wrought his share of havoc on the Patriots in the last four seasons. The Indianapolis comeback in the AFC title game three years ago inflicted such trauma on New England that the Patriots went schizophrenic on us and created a new personality. Out went the Pats of old and in came the high-flying antics of Randy Moss and the New England passing game, which produced a perfect 18-0 record until the February 2008 razing in Arizona.

As we all know, the Pats haven’t been the same since and they haven’t beaten the Colts since, either. After going for it on fourth-and-2 earlier this season, Pats coach Bill Belichick cited the AFC championship loss in defending his decision. In that game, Belichick said, the Pats punted the ball away and Manning beat them. In this game, they went for it and Manning beat them. As such, you couldn’t help but the get feeling that Belichick has given up entirely in trying to stop Manning and has elected to try beating the Colts at their own their own game.

Of course, the Patriots of old never would have chosen such a path.

If you already knew all of that – and you undoubtedly do – here is now the flipside: the Jets may have the closest antidote to Manning when it comes to defending the passing game. The 24-year-old Revis is the consummate shutdown cornerback in a league where the term "pass defense’’ has become an oxymoron, which has only made him all the more valuable.

Example: In the last four games against the Jets and Revis, Pats receiver Randy Moss has 14 catches for 106 yards, an average of 3.5 catches and 26.5 yards per game. And while the Pats throttled the Jets in Foxborough during the regular season, they did so largely behind a brilliant 15-catch, 192-yard performance by Wes Welker, who has since suffered a major knee injury. Quite simply, Revis changes the game, and the Pats of 2010 may not have an answer for him given the uncertainty over Welker’s future.

So there you have it. On the one hand, a deteriorated Patriots defense still has Peyton Manning to contend with for years to come, largely because the road to the Super Bowl still goes through Indianapolis. On the other, the road through the AFC East now includes at least a stop in New York, where the Jets have built a relatively young, tenacious defense around a cornerback who could be around a while. If you’re the Pats, you now have to find ways to account for both of those things – Manning and Revis, the best passing offense and the best passing defense in the AFC – if you want to reclaim superiority in the conference, let alone the league.

Maybe that means finding better players in the secondary to combat the Indy passing attack. Maybe it means finding a pass rusher. Maybe it means rebuilding your wide receiving corps with more versatile receivers than Moss to combat the Jets passing attack. Maybe it means a better running game. Maybe it means all of the above because the combination of the Colts and Jets will require the Pats to be far more like the balanced teams of the early 2000s who could play any team in any style of game and win.

As we all know, no team better demonstrated that the 2004 Patriots, who shut down the Colts in the divisional playoffs, 20-3, before going to Pittsburgh and lighting up the defensive-oriented Steelers in a 41-27 affair that was far more lopsided than the score suggests.

Three years ago at roughly this time, after losing the AFC title game to the Colts, the Pats had one of their more aggressive offseasons ever, adding Moss, Welker and Adalius Thomas, the latter of whom was supposed to be an answer for Dallas Clark. Thomas never turned out as advertised. This Sunday, the new challenges for the Pats will be on full display, from Manning to Revis, covering the entire spectrum of offense to defense.

And right now, the Patriots don’t have an answer for one, let alone both.