I have two thoughts about the whole Tim Thomas controversy.

1. Tim Thomas needs to shut up.

2. The media needs to shut up.

When did the Boston sports world go communist? Whatever Tim Thomas's political views may be, he has every right to voice them, just as you, I, or any other American does. That's not exactly a revelation, but the way the media is treating his stances on President Obama, Catholics, and religious freedom, it seems a lesson that needs reiterating. 

Yesterday's locker room scrum with the Bruins goalie was an embarrassment. For the media, that is. If Thomas wants to post his beliefs in a public forum like Facebook, that's his right. If the media wants to ask him about it, that's their right. If Thomas wants to keep personal life away from work, well, that's his right.

Thomas saying so once should have been enough.

Instead, reporters did their best to get a rise out of Thomas, trying to unlock the mystery behind a man who ...gasp ... may have different beliefs than they do. Quelle horreur.

Facebook may be a public forum, barring privacy settings, and as the star athlete of a professional sports team, Thomas is very much a public figure. That doesn't make him a cyborg. The man is allowed to have a life, views, and beliefs just as anyone else is, and because of his notoriety, he can voice them on a bigger platform. There's nothing wrong with that.

What athletes do with their own time is up to them, despite what TMZ may say about that. If Thomas's agenda fit what 98 percent of the media believed, he'd be applauded and left alone. But how dare he think differently than them. The gall. 

Thomas electing to not visit the White House was one thing, a story rightfully pursued and debated. This latest incident is something else entirely.

Politics amaze me, probably the one realm of debate we can get into which sparks pure hatred on the part of many. Some of us choose to keep our views close to the vest for that very reason. Others see a duty to push a message or agenda. Neither you, nor I should have issue with that. Making this into a bigger story than it deserves to be is ludicrous. Heads up, holier-than-thou  -  Tim Thomas isn't causing a distraction in the Bruins' locker room. You are.

But Tim ... just can it.

For now, at least. There will be plenty of time in the offseason to preach a message, but it's clear that his platform isn't going to simmer down any time soon, and if it does become a distraction, he is ultimately going to find his way out of town, possibly by the end of the month. In a way, that's sort of sad that a grown man can't talk about his feelings and beliefs, but that's the free press we live in. For the good of the team, Thomas needs to put on the brakes, lest the media next accuse him of kicking puppies in the Ristuccia parking lot.

If they ever get out of this funk, the Bruins have to be considered one of the top teams to make a run at the Stanley Cup, but the potential for infighting could pose a blemish on that goal. Think of it as a marriage. You and your husband or wife may have different religious and political beliefs. You may have different music tastes or like to do different things. But if someone keeps bringing up those divergences, it's eventually going to cause a tensional rift.

Everyone just needs to shut up. Freedom of speech clearly only works when you say what everybody else wants to hear. Home of the brave? More like home of the neutered.

We haven't heard too much about Liverpool Football Club this baseball offseason, mainly because the collapse of John Henry's stateside team didn't really seem to lend itself to relentless promotion for his football club across the pond. Even Fenway Sports Group - of all people  - had to understand that.

Besides, Henry himself told us all not to worry about Liverpool draining funds from the Red Sox, because that's not how Fenway Sports Group works. Well, what a relief.

Of course, the Red Sox followed up the worst collapse in baseball history by signing Nick Punto and Friends, which has some fans in a "Steady...let's see where they're going with this" approach. Then, all of a sudden, spring training begins next week, and everyone is left just sort of scratching their heads. That was it, huh? But anyway, welcome back, Kelly Shoppach.

Which all makes Jon Heyman's post today over at CBSSports.com all the more interesting because, see, Henry hasn't been unwilling to spend money  after all. He's just spending it overseas.

Heyman writes:

Boston's total outlay of cash was less than $10 million (not counting Valentine). Henry hasn't explained the sudden frugality. But here's one guess: He overpspent (sic) on soccer.

Henry's outlay of loot for his Liverpool soccer team was $179 million this year, or about 20 times what he spent on the Red Sox. Forward Andy Carroll got 35 million pounds ($54.7 million), forward Luis Suarez got 23 million pounds ($35.9 million), midfielder Stewart Downing 20 million pounds ($31.2 million), midfielder Jordan Henderson 16 million pounds ($25 million), midfielder Charlie Adam 7.5 million pounds ($11.7 million), defenseman Sebastian Coates seven million pounds ($10.9 million) and defenseman Jose Enrique got 6.3 million pounds ($9.8 million).

That's all great for Liverpoool.

Now, can any of them pitch or play shortstop?

So, when will the soccer team start affecting the bottom line in Boston, just as we feared it might over a year ago, only to be assured by Henry that such a thought was "nonsense?" You tell me.

To the hundreds that have demanded my immediate dismissal, the fan who hoped I got clipped by the Green Line, and even the Neanderthal who wished cancer upon me, I issue a mea culpa.

Clearly, I never intended Sunday night's column, written in the immediate aftermath of the Patriots' loss in Super Bowl XLVI, to garner quite the widespread attention - and negativity - it happened to find over the course of the next 24 hours. Despite what has been theorized out there in various circles, it was not premeditated, nor was it a "joke post." It wasn't a sparkling display by any means either.

As I've tried to convey, perhaps with illustrious failure, the over-the-top tone of the piece was intentional, meant to convey the frustration that Patriots fans had to be feeling after the crushing loss to the Giants. Despite what some have opined, the first stroke of the keyboard didn't take place until confetti was raining down on the turf at Lucas Oil Stadium. I intended to write something while the emotions were still bubbling, creating a destination where Pats fans could vent their own frustrations over another devastating Super Bowl loss.

It backfired. Tremendously.

So, to the dozens who have pointed out my follically-challenged scalp (thanks, I hadn't noticed), called me a hack, loser, or some other unprintable expletive, and even the tough guy who promised to put my head (that's "cue ball" head, sir) through a wall if he spotted me in Boston, consider this my repentance.

I still think Tom Brady was most at fault for the loss, but it wasn't directly because of the safety as I noted. Granted, it did lead to forcing the defense on the field for most of the first quarter, but it wasn't the quarterback who happened to be the 12th man on the field. I didn't take into account how hurt he might have been when he tremendously underthrew that ball to Rob Gronkowski, but if he knew he was hurting, his decision-making process there should have been better. Yes, Wes Welker should have caught the ball, but it also could have been thrown with more accuracy. Again, I didn't take into account how Brady's possible injury may have affected his performance.

But rational thinking doesn't come to head in such a moment, and frankly, that was my intention; to present the knee-jerk reactions of what the fan base had to be feeling at that very moment. As it turned out, there was little anger directed toward the Patriots. Disappointment, yes, but the anger was at a minimum.

That, apparently, was reserved for me.

Tom Brady is not an embarrassment, and neither was his performance Sunday night. It was uneven, at best, but embarrassing? No. As many Twitter commenters noted, my avatar's four picks in a Super Bowl is embarrassing, to which I say, "Lay off Drew." But that's a debate for another time. Five career Super Bowls is nothing to deny any quarterback's greatness.

It was an intentional, heat-of-the-moment analysis that did not work. Tom Brady is not Jim Kelly. At worst, he's John Elway in reverse, but the story has yet to be completed. The erroneous blame I laid on Brady was a commentary that wasn't fully-flushed out, and thus immensely unsuccessful. If the Patriots had won the game, the initial reaction would have been that Brady is now Montana, that he had joined the ranks - like he hadn't already - of the greatest quarterbacks to play the game. He would have graced Sports Illustrated (again), gone to Disney World as the MVP, and sat in the Letterman chair occupied by Eli Manning last night.

But when they lose, everyone labels it a "team game."

You can't have it both ways.

Of course, my harried, obnoxious stance on that went over like Menino tackling Latin. In a rush to present a forum, I incredibly misjudged the audience, and that is my most crippling error.

I realize that. Whether you choose to believe I do or not is really up to you. 

So, to the fans who called me one step below Skip Bayless (gulp), mindless, moronic, or gutless, and, especially to those who said they simply didn't get it, you're better than this, or wondered which part of left field it was coming from, truly, mea culpa.

Spring training starts next week, though I can't promise many gumdrops and rainbows about the Sox. I'll apologize for that now, too.

And now, with some...less controversial material...

Via Yahoo! sports comes the heartwarming story of Jona Rechnitz, who bet $1,000 last night that the first score of Super Bowl XLVI would be a safety, a gamble that carried 50-to-1 odds. He, of course, walked away with $50,000. (Here's a photo of the ticket.) Not bad. So, Brady at least helped someone out last night. (Ducks.)

Yes, this story originated on The Big Lead, but we've got a few issues with them right now, so go to Yahoo! Tell them the hack sent you.

The legend is dead, the prince has turned back into a frog, and...well, use whatever other cliché you want.

A performance as bad as Tom Brady's tonight in Super Bowl XLVI deserves a lead just as lame.

Sorry, Tommy Boy, this one's on you. Your hideous performance led to the Giants' 21-17 Super Bowl title win. How embarrassing for your coach, your teammates, and your fans.

But especially for you, boy wonder. It was one thing when you led the game off with a safety, which surely put plenty of faith into the heart of Patriot Nation, but just when you have the game, just when you might be able to run off the clock, you huck the thing downfield. Yes, if Wes Welker catches that thing, you're in the clear, and fans will place the blame either way, but what happened to being safe in that situation? What happened to the Patriot Way and clock management?

What happened to you?

What an embarrassment for the Patriots organization and Bob Kraft. So now the Giants have taken Lombardi from you twice, and you haven't looked this bad in a playoff game since...well, two weeks ago against the Ravens. Maybe that moment will actually hit you as you're whittling down water slides in South America looking like Prince Valiant this spring. The Patriots haven't won a title in seven years, but even worse, they're now turning into the Buffalo Bills, with the Giants being their Cowboy daddy. That's not easy to swallow in a region where New York is regarded as highly as the menu at Beacon Hill Pub.

But, there you are, Tom. That's what you have become. Your legacy has been stamped, but you're turning your Joe Montana status into one of Jim Kelly. But, hey what you worry? There's that new mansion in the "Names" pages to deal with.

Yes, there were plenty of dropped passes to go around. Granted. But when you begin the game with such a boneheaded play, then proceed to make random mistakes, sorry, Tom, game is on you.

There was no fourth and 13 to blame Belichick for.

Welker was the closest thing to Asante, and the eeriness compared to the Tyree play will be discussed for decades to come.

Thanks for that too. Can't wait. Oh, look, another text coming in from 212...

Tom, it's not all your fault, but you're the poster boy, you had opportunities, and you failed to make them. Add to that your blunders, and it all becomes about you. You blew this Super Bowl. You denied your coach No. 4. You let down your teammates.

Eli and Peyton now have as many rings as you combined over the past five years. You haven't sniffed one in seven. How's that hit you?

Maybe it doesn't hit you as hard anymore, and maybe that's the problem.

The safety killed the Patriots. Killed them.

And there's nobody to blame but Tom Brady.

However hard it might be to swallow, the glory days are gone. Even Montana handed off to Mallett at some point, right?

You've read enough Super Bowl media saturation this week, that it's no wonder your eyelids are burning with anticipation for Sunday. So, let's sum up this week's coverage thusly: Who would you rather have, Eli or Peyton? Gronk ankle. Gisele's e-mail. Cocky Brady digging on Buffalo hotel rooms! Coughlin. Parcells. Belichick. Peyton's gonna play!!! Peyton. Peyton. Peyton. Madonna. Peyton. Parade planning. Tyree. Commercials. The ankle. Day-by-day. Front four. Giants rushing attack. UMass. BC. Giants receiving attack. Gronk.In a big game....Eli or Peyton?

Does that about cover it?

Super Bowl predictions

Here's how folks from around the country see the game unfolding, with the Giants a decided favorite.

ESPN.com staff: Six out of eight pick the Giants.

CBS Sports.com staff: Giants across the board.

Pete Prisco, CBS Sports: Giants 31, Patriots 24. This Giants team is on a roll and getting better. They handled Tom Brady for most of the first meeting, and I think they do a good job slowing him again. Eli Manning lights up the New England secondary.

Greg Cote, Miami Herald: Patriots 31, Giants 27. Picking New England AT ALL is what roils the tummy a bit, and part of that is the mystery of Rob Gronkowski's left ankle. The Gronk is that important to Tom Brady and the Pats' chances - especially against a Giants defense that has struggled defending tight ends at times, including the Niners' Vernon Davis in the NFC title game. The pick assumes Gronkowski will play and be effective. Brady will need him as a quick-hit outlet guy to offset the Biggies' mighty pass rush, and to outscore Eli Manning and all those weapons. Four years ago on this stage, Eli and NYG denied Brady and Bill Belichick not only a championship, but a perfect season. They won't be perfect this time, but I'd bet the Pats will be champions.

Peter Schrager, Foxsports.com: Giants 30, Patriots 21. Regis is taking the Giants. Every C-list celebrity hawking a sports drink, a signature clothing line, or a Zumba dance video on radio row this week has felt the need to offer a Super Bowl prediction. I've heard several of these predictions and have tuned out about 95 percent of them. My brain simply incapable of retaining the info. But the one guy who's opinion I trust? The one guy who's opinion actually matters? The one man who's pick actually carries any weight? Regis. And Regis, according to Jason Gay at the Wall Street Journal, is taking the Giants on Sunday. I've been listening to Regis my entire life. I see no reason to turn my back on him now.

Tim Kawakami, San Jose Daily News: Patriots 37, Giants 21. It's not that I think Tom Brady needs extra motivation to win a Super Bowl - the "motivation" issue is always overblown, in my mind, when championships are at stake, anyway. But I think that Brady has played poorly in several notable playoff moments - starting with Super Bowl XLII against the NYGs and continued to the AFC title game victory over Baltimore. In a word, I think Brady is due for an enormous performance, whether Rob Gronkowski is close to 100% or not, and I think Belichick can draw up a defense that keeps the Giants' offensive relatively in check

Dan Connolly, Baltimore Sun: Giants 28, Patriots 24. I've been around sports long enough to know it is foolish to pick against the better quarterback in a big game. And, no matter how much ice is in Eli Manning's veins, I'd rather have Tom Brady at crunch time. But I am just not sold on the New England Patriots' defense. Not with the way Manning, Hakeem Nicks and Victor Cruz are playing.

Bunch of celebrities ESPN rounded up: Fifteen out of 25 pick the Giants, with a confused Brad Pitt abstaining. Maya Angelou described the Patriots as "terrible losers which means the Giants, who are great winners, have to work harder than usual, and they will."

Bobby Valentine, Red Sox manager: Patriots. I grew up with the (Robustelli) family, so it was hard not to root for the Giants growing up. But I told Bill that I'll be there and I'll be rooting for him.

Some rhinoceros: Giants.

Some ostrich: Patriots.

Globe staff:Three out of four pick the Patriots. (New England by 3.)

It says here: Patriots 27, Giants 24. Their legacies won't necessarily be tainted with a loss, but is there any way Belichick and Brady allow this to happen twice? It's 2004 sports history all over again: Revenge on New York, and a Patriots Super Bowl title.

So, the Madden simulation had the Giants beating the Patriots in the Super Bowl, 27-24, but that's nothing compared to what Tecmo Bowl predicts in the following video.

They're only going to score 17 points?

We've missed you, New York.

Sure, we had our fling with Vancouver. Philadelphia tried to make a pass at us. And Los Angeles? They're just an old flame we get together with every now and then.

But they're not you, New York. We miss hating you.

Look, we understand that the Red Sox haven't given you much to gripe about, and your Knicks are still a ways away. But the Bruins and Rangers are destined for the Eastern Conference Finals, and now we have the ultimate, a rematch between the Patriots and Giants in the Super Bowl.

You have the bravado. You have the cloud over our heads. You have the ha-has.

You have the unmitigated nonsense.

Oh, how we missed this, New York. That happens when you become irrelevant. OK, you've got a World Series trophy more recently then we have, you took away our perfect season, and yes...no, that's it. We love the fact that we both denied those Canucks up north, but really, the last time you did it Mudhoney was still hip. Not to say we're proud of doing it in an age of Bieber, but we'll take it.

Boston and New York haven't faced off in anything this significant since Glendale, and your latest shenanigans are killing us. Tom Brady tells a crowd of 25,000 Patriot fans that he hopes to have a bigger party next week and you take it as some sort of snide guarantee. What's the man supposed to do? Apologize for Asante Samuel?

To quote laureate Steve Serby of the distinguished New York Post, (Which to be fair, ran the killer headline today, "Giants want to win championship for New York fans." I mean, bravo where bravo is due): "If Brady scoffing at Plaxico Burress' pre-Super Bowl XLII prediction of Giants 23, Patriots 17 was able to get Big Blue's dander up, there's every reason to believe that the Talk Is Cheap Play the Game boys with the NY on their helmets just might consider this a Super Diss."

See what he did there? He used the word "Super" with something else. Like SuperBad.

This is what drives people so SuperNuts (ah?) about Super Bowl week. Mix New York into the proceedings, and it's just one big ol' ball of ridiculous insanity. Oh, how we missed this. See, we just don't understand how to do it with Vancouver, and everyone else...well, we just kind of like.

That's why we're so eager to welcome you back in our lives, New York. Yes, your chowder is inferior and you still have A-Rod around for...egads, we're actually sorry for bringing that up.

The truth is, we need you in our lives. You're the brother who thinks he's the father, when he's really just nothing more than a bloated has-been. New England thinks ahead. New York revels in its past.

It's OK. Nothing to be ashamed about. It's just that when talk gets tough it's nice to have something to back it up with. Yeah, yeah, Glendale, Eli, Tyree. We got that. How's Indy looking?

Sunday will be yet another legendary showdown in a litany of sporting history between Boston and New York, the most anticipated rematch between the two fan bases since the 2004 ALCS. How'd that work?

Sorry, we're falling into your bucket there. The past is irrelevant. Let's do Sunday, shall we?

Then, let's do June.

You too, Vancouver.

At least one Canucks player had to weigh in on Tim Thomas, right?

It happens to be Cory Schneider, the Boston College grad and Marblehead native who earned the right to play in front of his hometown fans earlier this month when Vancouver visited the Garden. Schneider's message to Thomas: "Suck it up."

"I'm not that religious but if I had the chance to meet the Pope, it'd be pretty cool," Schneider told The Province. "I don't believe in everything the Catholic church does, but I'd still show up to the Vatican and say Hi to the Pope.

"I have no problem with his personal beliefs, but (Thomas) can suck it up for an hour, say Hi and be with the team, and avoid all of this.

"Respect the (Presidency). He plays for Team USA and he has no problem making millions of dollars in the USA but he can?t go say Hi to the President.

"You get a lot of benefits living in the US and he should have little bit of respect for that.

"It's just the timing. It's poor timing. It's about putting your own agenda aside to do something with the team whether you like the guy or not."

Look, I'm going to agree...with....(gnashing teeth)...a...Canuck....on this. You may not agree with his decision, but he had every God-given right to skip the trip to the White House. But where we have to draw the line is with how he's making his organization look in all this. Thomas's mission was successful. Everybody is talking about his reasons for skipping out. It's generated incredible buzz, and a sometimes hateful political debate (what else is new?), but he got his message out.

But the Bruins have been put in an unfair situation with Thomas's Constitutional rights hanging over their heads. Whether or not it's a distraction remains to be seen, but any employer shouldn't have to be unfairly seen in a different agenda than anything it has failed to preach. And when a team source tells the Globe's Fluto Shinzawa, "[Expletive] selfish [expletive]," when asked about Thomas, that's not what you're looking for from a team unity standpoint.

Shinzawa also suggests maybe the Bruins could shop Thomas in the offseason. Then again, the NHL trading deadline is Feb. 27. If this continues to be a talking point by then, would they? Should they?

I hate asking those questions. I'm sure, if they have to, the Bruins will too.

Thirteen days.

Thirteen days of hype, reminders, and bravado from that city west of Stamford.

Revenge Bowl, 2012.

Bring it.

Good grief, what a day for football yesterday was. Baltimore has not one, but a pair of Buckners to add to its illustrious sports history, while the Giants staved off the 49ers in overtime to set up a Patriots-Giants Super Bowl matchup.

Again.

There will be no David Tyree, Asante Samuel, Rodney Harrison, or Michael Strahan. The game will be played indoors in Indianapolis, not the desert, and the hope for Patriots fans is that the end result is much different.

It will be.

There's no way the Patriots lose this game is there? There's no way Bill Belichick or Tom Brady will allow it. There's no way that they allow their legacies to be tainted by a pair of gaffes to Big Blue. Right?

Right?

The Patriots open as three-point favorites to win their fourth Super Bowl, a game the team has been to seven times now (3-3) in franchise history. You could argue this trip was more gift-wrapped than any other. Doesn't matter. They're there, and 30 other teams are not.

Belichick is seeking his fourth ring as a head coach, sixth overall. Brady is in search of his fourth, his first since beating the Eagles in 2005. Wes Welker is looking for his first. So are Aaron Hernandez, Jerod Mayo, and Rob Gronkowski.

Oh, Gronkowski.

If parallels are anything, Pats fans have to hate waking up to news that the best tight end in football ended yesterday's win over Baltimore in a...boot, of all things. We all remember those infamous tabloid pictures of Brady wandering Manhattan streets the week prior to heading to Arizona. Initial reports say that he'll be ready to play in a fortnight, but still, you have to hate the irony.

Whatever. We'll take it. It's been a long time since we've seen a title game around here. Seven months, to be precise. The Patriots, Celtics, and Bruins have all made their respective postseasons three years in a row now. The Red Sox are doing their best not to join that party. But, hey, it's tough, you know.

New England is finally back on a winning streak. The city has now seen four straight playoffs wins (Bruins, Games 6 and 7, Patriots over the Broncos and Ravens) and things are finally back on top. There's no way that streak ends with a loss in Indy. No way.

History is at stake. And, yes, sure, the last time these two teams faced off in the Super Bowl there was a bit of legacy in line, but there's no way it's going to happen again.

No way.

Right?

It's the matchup everyone wanted, and the matchup none of us wanted. But really, has there ever been a more compelling showdown in Patriots Super Bowl history?

The Bears, Packers, Rams, Panthers, and Eagles all never had a bitter history with the New Englanders. The Giants? What a storyline that will be driven into the ground.

You know what? We can't wait.

New England-New York. The Northeast rules the sports scene yet again.

This time is going to be different.

We think. Right?

Here are six things I know heading into this weekend's NFL conference championship tilts.

1. Ray Rice will run all over the Patriots.
2. Tom Brady will have at least four touchdown passes.
3. Rob Gronkowski will "Gronk" at least twice.
4. Chad Ochocinco will at least double his snaps from last week.
5. Bill Belichick will have another wrinkle in the backfield, a la Aaron Hernandez last weekend.
6. I really can't take two weeks of Giants-Patriots preview coverage.
6a But I'm pretty sure we're going to have to.

AFC title game predictions

Here's what they're saying around the country, with the Patriots an overwhelming favorite to head back to the Super Bowl.

Cold, Hard Football Facts: Patriots 26, Ravens 23. The Patriots will win. But given Baltimore's obvious advantages in the trenches, and it's better defense, expect a game closer than the one that the Pigskin Public is anticipating.

ESPN.com staff: Seven out of eight pick the Patriots.

CBS Sports staff: Patriots across the board.

Pete Prisco, CBS Sports: Patriots 31, Ravens 21. The Ravens went into Foxboro and beat the Patriots in the playoffs two years ago, dominating from start to finish. But these are much different teams. Even so, that has to help Baltimore's confidence. The Ravens lost 23-20 in overtime to the Patriots last season in Foxboro. Tom Brady is coming off a six-touchdown game. He looked as comfortable as he has looked all season in carving up Denver. But this Ravens defense is much better. The Baltimore secondary will have to try and take away Rob Gronkowski and force Brady to go elsewhere. He doesn't have a deep threat, which will help make that easier to do. New England's defense has really struggled this season, but played well against Denver. That's because Denver is a run-first team. The Ravens can't be that here. Even though Ray Rice is key, they have to make some plays down the field, and they will. Joe Flacco will have some shots and hit a few. But he won't be able to keep up with Brady. The Ravens won't be able to hit him enough and Brady will make them pay. Patriots take it and move on to the Super Bowl.

Vinnie Iyer, Sporting News: Patriots 24, Ravens 23. No offense to Flacco, but Brady looks like a man on a mission. He played brilliantly against the Broncos with six touchdown passes. And he will get his team a step closer to accomplishing it.

Mike Florio, ProFootballTalk.com: Patriots 27, Ravens 20. Yes, the Baltimore offense looked sluggish against the Texans. During the regular season, however, the Texans had one of the best defenses in the league. The Patriots, in sharp contrast, had one of the worst. Still, can the Ravens muster at least one more point than the New England offense will score? The internal offense-vs.-defense strife in Baltimore seems to be real, and it could lead to an ugly confrontation on the sidelines if the Pats jump out to an early lead and the Ravens can't respond. Also, the Pats' defense quietly is improving. Throw in the fact that the Patriots would love to give owner Robert Kraft something about which to feel good as he continues to mourn his wife's passing (Myra Kraft's initials remain on their jerseys), Tom Brady's memory of a home thrashing two years ago from the Ravens, and a burning desire by Brady and Bill Belichick to finally get that fourth championship, and it's hard to envision the Patriots losing.

Gregg Rosenthal, ProFootballTalk.com: Patriots 31, Ravens 27. This game comes down to two questions. Is the Ravens defense more dominant than the Patriots offense? After watching Houston's running game push Baltimore around last week, I'm rolling with the Patriots there. Terrell Suggs disappears too often. New England's tight ends are too hard to defend. Second question: Does the good Joe Flacco show up this week? All season, I've thought a great quarterback would take the Patriots out in the playoffs. New England doesn't have to face a great quarterback in the AFC. The health of Patrick Chung, Brandon Spikes, Dane Fletcher, and the rest of the Patriots no-names all help make the New England defense competent enough.

Greg Cote, Miami Herald: Patriots 27, Ravens 17. Ravens safety Ed Reed, the old Cane, caused a bit of a tempest this week saying he thought quarterback Joe Flacco seemed - rattled - in last week's win over Houston. I think Reed and his defense are more apt to be the ones rattled in Sunday's early game for the AFC title. Tom Brady and Bill Belichick are the NFL's most playoff-savvy quarterback/coach combo, and at home they present a mighty two-headed dragon to slay even for a premier defense like Baltimore's. Still-maniacal-but-aging Ray Lewis is not as good in coverage as he once was, and Crows will find it tough to defend the heart of the field against Pats super-tight-end Rob Gronkowski and Aaron Hernandez, who'd be the best tight end on about 25 other teams. Also expect Belichick defensively to go blitz-heavy on Flacco, who can be mistake-prone when his pocket gets flooded (which is probably why Reed's "rattled" comment hit a nerve). All four of Baltimore's losses came on the road this season. Give Blackbirds a medium shot to cover the bet line - it's no fluke they got this far -  but not much chance to win outright. I don't trust anything about this game more than I simply trust Brady to outscore the other team.

Peter Schrager, FoxSports.com: Ravens 30, Patriots 27. I know it sounds crazy, but I like the Ravens on Sunday. Like the Cowboys did earlier this season vs. New England, the defense should stifle Brady just enough to give the offense a chance. And unlike the Cowboys earlier this season, the Ravens offense will be able to get the job done. I'm taking the Ravens. And if Cody happens to knock out Tom Brady on Sunday, I'll be sure to give you those stock tips next week.

NFL Network "Playbook:" Three out of four pick the Patriots.

Tim Kawakami, San Jose Mercury News: Patriots 27, Ravens 13. I just can't see the Ravens QB making a series of plays - enough plays - to match or even come close to matching what Tom Brady can and will do. I'm not saying Flacco can't do any of it. The New England D certainly isn't awe-inspiring. And maybe Baltimore's defense can shut down Brady.

ESPN NFL Live crew: Patriots across the board.

Mark Potash, Chicago Sun-Times: 23, Ravens 20. Even after humiliating the Broncos last week, the "Tebow factor" still looms for the Patriots. Teams that defend Tim Tebow have struggled against conventional QBs the following week: allowing an average passer rating of 100.5 (20 TDs, 4 INTs) this season. That could come into play with Ravens QB Joe Flacco, who has a 61.6 career passer rating on the road in the playoffs but is more than capable of a big game against a quality opponent. Tom Brady has an 89.1 career rating in the playoffs but had his worst postseason performance in a 33-14 wild-card game loss to the Ravens in 2010 (23 of 42, 154 yards, 2 TDs, 3 INTs, 49.1 rating). Ravens RB Ray Rice rushed for 159 yards, 2 TDs in that game.

Yahoo! sports: Two out three pick the Patriots.

Baltimore Sun staff: Five out of seven pick the Ravens.

Globe staff: Four writers split their picks (Patriots by 7.)

It says here: Patriots 31, Ravens 24. Across the country: Giants 24, 49ers 14.

And so it goes.

Bouncin' around the room while avoiding sparkles....

Meghan!

Clearly the biggest story leading up to Sunday's AFC title game between the Patriots and Ravens is Ed Reed's criticism of Baltimore quarterback Joe Flacco. But really, it was Flacco's response that seemed more damaging. "I don't care, I'll have a ring and we'll be holding a trophy," Flacco said. "The perception won't change but it doesn't really matter." Oh. OK. The Sports Hub's Mike Felger deftly compared those comments to ones made by Vancouver goalie Roberto Luongo last spring, when he crowed about being one win away from the Stanley Cup. How'd that work out?

That goes for you too, Charles Dolan. 

Fan anthem showdown. Who you got?

When asked about his history being intertwined with Tom Brady, Bernard Pollard said, "That's the pretty boy. That's the man of the NFL. That's Mr. Do-It-All," he said. "So everybody is going to hold that against me but I don't care. I don't play for men. I don't play for no woman. I play because I'm given the gift to play this game. And in this sport, you can't say, 'Go out there and hit somebody full speed with equipment and everything else on,' and say, 'Be careful.'" So, there you go.

LaDanian Tomlinson on Inside the NFL. Class act, as always.

Rob Lowe breaking the "news" that Peyton Manning is going to retire caused quite the stir in the Twittersphere yesterday. Of course, Daddy Manning denied the story, but it's interesting to note that Lowe is apparently friendly with Colts owner Jim Irsay. Of course, Irsay is nuts, so who knows what he might have told the actor.

I have no idea what it has to do with cars, but it doesn't dilute the brilliance.

Over/under on how many of these we see Sunday?

A new report states, "A group of Penn State University trustees say they decided to fire legendary football coach Joe Paterno in part because he didn't do enough after learning of an alleged child sex assault involving a former assistant. They also cited concerns Paterno couldn't effectively lead the team in the face of the scandal." In other breaking news, yellow and blue make green.

Welcome back, Wikipedia. I now know today is Confederate Heroes Day in Texas. (Allegedly.)

Seven days with no sniping from the Pacific Northwest. Wonders.

Maybe not a perfect parallel, but anyone who doesn't think Danny Ainge should explore trading Paul Pierce probably thinks Nomar Garciaparra is still playing in Boston.

Mental note to all those attending the game Sunday: No sparkles!

Shawn Thornton scored on a penalty shot and fought old friend Mark Stuart in helping lead the Bruins to a 5-3 win over the Winnipeg Jets last night, but he saved his best work for after the game.

During a segment on Comcast Sportsnet's "Sticks and Stones," Vancouver's Tony Gallagher, a columnist for The Province, criticized Thornton taking on Canucks forward Dale Weise during Saturday's much-ballyhooed game at the Garden, calling Thornton "unethical." Unbeknownst to Gallagher, Thornton just happened to be sitting on the set, and what ensues is a nifty little smackdown.

Oh, and as CSNNE.com pointed out, "for the record, Thornton is listed as 6-foot-2 and 217 pounds, and Weise is listed as 6-2, 206." But you know, facts and all. 

Of course, this is playing well in Vancouver. The Province's Wyatt Arndt writes:

I thought it was kind of lame to ambush Tony like that with Shawn Thornton. I understand that many people love the idea of an athlete getting a chance to fire back at the media, but it still feels like this lacks professional courtesy. All this does is drag this rivalry into the mud a bit and make it seem even more like a school yard situation. Any time I find myself thinking "This reminds of something Damien Cox would do" I know it's not a good sign.

- Why doesn't Michael Felger at least debate and argue with Tony on this main point instead of just running to Shawn Thornton to jump in? Because of ratings most likely. And when a show values ratings above all else, I find it hard to take them seriously when they discuss the integrity of the game.

- Shawn Thornton likes to wear purple velvet suits. I won't lie, I found this odd. If I was a BRASH kind of guy, I might think Thornton murdered Grimace and is now wearing his skin as a suit.

- Shawn Thornton makes a good point during the video. He is correct that some guys can fight multiple times in a period, and it's his right to say he doesn't respect Weise for stepping up and answering the bell. What ruins his entire argument for me, though, is on one hand he is trying to have a logical debate, but then he follows that up with the gem of a line of how he fought "seven" Canucks in the period and he wasn't tired at all. Really Shawn? You dropped gloves and fought seven Canucks? Or do you think maybe you were mobbed near our bench and got pushed and shoved a bit? Or did a gloved punch sneak its way in there and really wear you out? I have no problem with Shawn wanting to make a point of Weise being able to fight after already having fought that period, but your counter point of having fought "seven" Canucks was, well, stupid.

- I was amused when Michael Felger responded to Gallagher talking about the Canucks winning the Presidents Trophy by congratulating him and telling him Boston used to celebrate those things too but they don't matter. It's a funny line, but again, it really lowers the bar on the entire professional thing. Wait, sorry, they are BRASH guys, so it's just what they do.

He goes on to write, "Vancouver and Chicago have what was the biggest rivalry in the NHL in my opinion, and they rarely talk trash about each other unless they are facing each other (aside from Dave Bolland). Keep it on the ice, and just tease us occasionally with some bitterness that flows into the press. Don’t just throw it in our faces everyday. This is boring. And awkward. Don’t be awkward."

I counted. Arndt wrote 1,412 words about this. Boring. Awkward. 

It goes on from there with more feigned outrage. I don't know, maybe it's all just sarcasm. Clearly, I'm not so sure anymore.

Dirty hit? Yup. No doubt.

Brad Marchand received a five-game suspension yesterday from NHL disciplinarian Brendan Shanahan following Saturday's low hit on Vancouver's Sami Salo. Deservedly so.

Yet, in the midst of the hue and cry leaking from the Pacific Northwest, the play reminds us of...something else.

Oh, right.

That's Game 1 of last spring's Stanley Cup Final, when Dan Hamhuis upended Milan Lucic, a hit labeled a "good, solid hip check," by analyst Ed Olczyk..

David Krejci to the box. Of course.

For sure, they're not identical situations, but close enough, and I didn't hear Claude Julien calling for Hamhuis' head after the incident like Alain Vigneault seemed to do yesterday with Marchand. Just another day for the gutless, hypocritical Vancouver Canucks. By now, what else would you expect?

Thanks to commenter "THR3ES" for reminding us of this play, also from last June. Look familiar?

Here are the hits side-by-side.

Also, here's Keith Ballard in last year's playoff series against San Jose.

We can understand your outrage, Vancouver.

Here's Vancouver Sun blogger Harrison Mooney on Saturday's game and the "uninformed" Bruins crowd.

It's not surprising that [Henrik Sedin] dislikes the Boston faithful. They can seem...uninformed. (Of course, when you consider where they get their information, you can't blame 'em.) For example, Cory Schneider got the start in this game, but the crowd jeered Luongo five times. Ridiculous. Only once did they get it right, chanting "We Want Luongo," proving that their relationship with him is akin to a kindergarten crush. They pick on him because they secretly like him.

Wow. Does Mooney really believe that the crowd thought Luongo was in net? I don't know what to think. It's either a lesson in the etiquette of taunting, or another desperate attempt to make Boston fans seem like uneducated neanderthals. I know we didn't burn Causeway Street after the game, so maybe there is work to do before being considered true hockey fans. Sorry, Vancouver. 

What do you think was racing through Roberto Luongo's mind last night as he watched the Bruins put up a nine-spot on the Calgary Flames? I mean, besides the unmistakable sound of deflating rubber? 

They're back. Those whiny, diving, sniveling, skilled superstars from the Pacific Northwest invade the Garden tomorrow for a highly-anticipated showdown against the team that stole their rightful Stanley Cup on that riotous evening in June. One show only.

In the end, it's only two points at stake for the Bruins and Canucks. But the theater surrounding this game is wildly intriguing, a reminder of how quickly this rivalry percolated over the course of just seven games. Heck, remember, most Bruins fans went into the finals last June with the thought process of, "Well, if the Bruins don't take it, Vancouver's just as good as anyone else. They're pretty likable." 

It took one "vegetarian" bite for that to change. 

It's just another game, the Bruins will tell you.

It's just another game, the Canucks will tell you.

It is. But it is most definitely not just another game.

After last night's shellacking of the Flames (Calgary hasn't been that embarrassed since Brian Orser fell to Boitano) Boston and Vancouver head into tomorrow's matinee with identical stacks of 53 points. After a slow start, the Canucks are once again at the top of the Western Conference. After a slow start, the Bruins are one point behind the Rangers for the Eastern Conference lead with a New York showdown looming in a fortnight. The Bruins are scoring a ridiculous 3.65 goals per game, allowing a mind-boggling 1.84. Their goal differential is now exactly at 2:1 (138-69).

Two-to-one.

And how do the Bruins prepare for their showdown with the Canucks? By tallying 15 goals over two nights, while Tim Thomas and Tuukka Rask allowed one combined.

Pumping tires, indeed.

Vancouver coach Alain Vigneault has yet to announce whether Luongo or homeboy Cory Schneider will get the start in net tomorrow, but Bruins fans aching for drama are indeed hoping for the former to go opposite Thomas. It would only add to the drama of welcoming the NHL's most-hated team to town.

Or, is that a fairy tale? Cory?

"Everyone has a lot to prove," Schneider told the Vancouver Province. "We took a lot of abuse from the media and their fans and some of our best players - Lou and the twins and guys like that - I think they're ready to prove that they are as advertised: first-team all-stars and incredible players, not what the Boston media portrayed them to be."

Oh.

The fact is, that while these may not be the same Bruins we watched struggle to score over stretches last season, these are indeed the same old Canucks, a team built on skill and speed, and ultimately vulnerable to the physical toughness of the Bruins. While the Bruins are doing their best to keep their mouths shut about the game (Conspiracy theory: Brad Marchand didn't have the flu, Claude Julien just knew he wouldn't resist yapping last night), the Canucks are already at it. The Province fueled some of the fire by contacting former Bruin Mark Recchi about his "most arrogant" comments over the summer. Reminded of those comments, Kevin Bieksa told the paper:

"The [Sedin] twins are so humble and you make not like playing against Lapierre and Burrows, but they're not arrogant," said Bieksa. "I just don't get it. Isn't he [Recchi] retired? Tell him to go play a round of golf or take a nap."

Cute. Maybe he'll take the "pee-wee jacket" with him too, eh, Kev?

Vigneault is also getting his whine time on, questioning the 1 p.m. start time.

"Obviously the NHL and their schedule-making didn't think it would be that big of a game putting it at 1 o'clock in the afternoon," Vigneault said. "I just saw what happened to Torts [Rangers coach John Tortorella, fined for his comments following the Winter Classic] so I am going to keep my comments to myself."

The Canucks last played Wednesday night. Are they coming to Boston via stagecoach?

Oh, the memories. Rome, Luongo, Bieksa, the "creepy little twins" (copyright, Aaron Ward), LaPierre. They'll be back at the Garden for the first time since Game 6 last June, facing a team that's even better than the one that stole their Cup from them. We can only hope they meet in the finals again come June, but for now, tomorrow serves as a welcome reminder of what was, and a tantalizing appetizer of what could be.

Get to the theater before 1.

Looking for a rematch of Super Bowl XLII? Don't bet on it.

Citing odds from Bovada.lv, the New York Daily News points out that it is an 18-1 shot to see the Patriots take on the Giants in Indianapolis in a few weeks. The Giants, of course, halted the Patriots' perfect 2007 season four years ago in Arizona. 

Eighteen-to-one, huh? Maybe Vegas is getting a little cute there.

The Patriots are, however, favored to take on a former Super Bowl opponent, as a New England-Green Bay Super Bowl carries an 11-4 shot, most likely among any opponents.

A Giants-Bengals Super Bowl, by the way, is a 200-1 shot.

According to the Las Vegas Hilton's Race and Sports Book, the Patriots carry 7-2 odds of winning their fourth Super Bowl title. The Packers are at 8-5.

Which all means the Ravens probably win the thing. 

I could do a "Top 10 Boston games of 2011" thing here, but I realized it would be awfully-centric to a period consisting of April-June, and not much else.

The best Patriots game of the year was the fourth-quarter win over the Cowboys at Gillette, with Tom Brady showing that magical late-drive spark that has waned over the years. Despite the defense, there is overwhelming hope for January, and there should be.

The best Celtics game of the season might have been the dramatic 96-93 playoff win over the Knicks, a game in which Kevin Garnett sunk the game-winner with 14 seconds remaining, and then stole the ball to seal victory. Boston would go on to sweep what very well could be the Big 3's final playoff series win. Sorry, that's true. 

The best Red Sox game of the year was really Opening Day, when Dustin Pedroia delivered an emotional first-inning home run that sparked the Sox to their first win of the year over the Yankees. It was just one more display as to why the second baseman is the team's most important player and de facto captain, and an all-too absent presence in the other 24 guys for the season's remaining schedule.

(I'd post the video here, but all my YouTube search is showing is "Sweet Caroline" videos. Sorry.)

The best Revolution game of the year was when David Beckham and the Galaxy visited Gillette, a game which I attended (my first), and found a certain affinity for the Revs crowd. And yes, my wife swooned when the Bend-it-Man ran within 50 feet of our seats.

The Bruins? Good luck.

Obvious Fella says it was clearly the Game 7 win over the Canucks, but that's simply acknowledging the completion and ignoring the journey. My goodness, it was some spring for hockey. Picking a favorite game is like picking a favorite child.

Gun to my head? It's the Game 7 win over the Lightning, a game that was played so perfectly by both sides that you would not expect to see such a contest again in your wildest dreams.

The Canucks series as a whole was probably the greatest NHL series I've seen in my lifetime, so it's hard to single out one game in particular. But that Game 7 against the Lightning...it was perfect. A perfect hockey game.

Your picks? Have at it.

We're vacating this space until Jan. 3. Wishing you and your families the happiest of holidays.

Take care of your shoes.

The Baseball Writers Association of America doesn't waste any time.

It only took hours after the bombshell about Bill Conlin made headlines for the BBWAA to once again make itself look like the incompetent organization that it has proven itself to be time and time again. Conlin, the long-time Philadelphia Daily News columnist, accused of sexual abuse in a story that appeared yesterday, was the recipient of the J.G. Taylor Spink Award earlier this year, the BBWAA's most prestigious honor given by his clueless colleagues in recognition of his "notable career."

Last night, BBWAA secretary/treasurer Jack O'Connell released the following statement:

"Bill Conlin has been a member in good standing of the BBWAA since 1966. The allegations have no bearing on his winning the 2011 J.G. Taylor Spink Award, which was in recognition of his notable career as a baseball writer."

That's got to be more embarrassing for many BBWAA members than Evan Grant or George King. Where's your almighty "morality" clause now, Jack? We're not saying you strip him of the award immediately, but a simple, "We're waiting to learn more" might have sufficed.

Instead, the BBWAA as an organization threw its undying support to Conlin after the accused retired in light of the accusations.

Gross.

David Brown makes a good point over on Big League Stew:

O'Connell seems to be saying that because Conlin hasn't been accused of molesting children (including relatives) while also writing about baseball, it's irrelevant to the Spink Award and (presumably) whether the honor can be revoked. He wasn't accused of doing anything untoward in a press box, or a clubhouse, or on the field, so who cares? Conlin could have been accused of treason, murder, war crimes - you name it - and it would not matter because none of it fits the description of a baseball writer's job. John Wayne Gacy might have raped and murdered all of those boys, but don't let that muddle his accomplishments as a clown painter.

The BBWAA isn't afraid to deny the likes of Pete Rose, Mark McGwire, and Barry Bonds, but when it comes to one of their own, the old boys club rushes to the lodge and denies reality, pledging its time-honored refrain.

"The BBWAA, heads in the sand since 1908."

Look, I'm all for humans playing football, but when a cart shows this sort of speed, movement, and ability to plow over the opposition, you just can't ignore it. Think the Pats can sign it up in time for the playoff run? Let's name him, "Jim."