Email Exchanges – Page 13 – Keefe To The City

Jan 29, 2014

Rangers-Islanders Begin Back-to-Back In the Bronx

The Rangers and Islanders meet in the second of the two Stadium Series games at Yankee Stadium and that calls for an email exchange with Dominik Jansky of Lighthouse Hockey.

The Rangers and Islanders met twice over the first 51 games of the season. But starting on Wednesday night, the rivals will play twice in two nights and will have played three times in 10 days.

With the Rangers and Islanders set to play in the second of the two Stadium Series games at Yankee Stadium on Wednesday, I did an email exchange with Dominik Jansky of Lighthouse Hockey to talk about the two lengthy streaks that have defined the Islanders’ season, if Jack Capuano is the right head coach for the team and how long Thomas Vanek will be an Islander.

Keefe: On Nov. 2, the Islanders beat the Bruins 3-1 and improved to 6-5-3 on the season. But starting on Nov. 5 against the Capitals, the Islanders went 5-16-4 through Dec. 28 and it looked like they had played themselves out of having a season before the end of the calendar year. But since their Dec. 28 loss to the Devils, the Islanders have gone 10-5-1 to get back in the mix in the Metropolitan Division and give themselves a chance to play meaningful hockey after the Olympic break.

What has been the difference for the Islanders over the last month?

Jansky: It’s maybe over-simplifying to put it this way, but basically they had bad goaltending and bad shooting luck during their struggles, and their recent upturn has coincided with better goaltending (Nabokov returning before getting hurt again, Kevin Poulin putting in a few games) and a more productive power play. As you’ve noticed, they have trouble keeping the puck out of their net, so winning games really depends on a big night on offense and enough saves to protect that lead.

They’ve lost several leads, but the winning streak was also marked by coming back from two-goal deficits to win four times.

Keefe: It’s obvious the Islanders can score with any team in the league. It’s keep the picking out the net that has held them back (they have allowed the second-most goals per game in the league) and prevented them from taking the next step. Part of is has been their defensive situation, but the biggest part of it is their goaltending situation.

(I know the following is a sore subject, but it’s something I have wanted to ask an Islanders fan about it in detail.)

I was a freshman in high school when I went to Boston to see a Bruins-Islanders game on April 7, 2001 and Rick DiPietro started in goal for the last game of the season for both teams. The Islanders lost that game 4-2, but I thought it was my first chance to see the No. 1 pick and future star play in the NHL.

Growing up in Southern Connecticut, I saw DiPietro play dozens of games for the Bridgeport Sound Tigers from 2001-2003. His numbers were outstanding for a 20- and 21-year-old goalie with one year of college hockey experience under his belt playing in the AHL and he played the puck as well as any goalie I had ever seen and also might have had the best wrist shot on the Sound Tigers. But that was 10 years ago. This year, Rick DiPietro played five game in the AHL for the Charlotte Checkers and posted a 5.18 goals against average and .846 save percentage before being released from his tryout contract.

How did we get to the point that the former No. 1 pick, the former Team USA No. 1 goalie and the goalie who was given a 15-year deal is now jobless (but still very wealthy)? How frustrating was not only the contract given to him, but his entire Islanders tenure?

Jansky: In a word: injuries. DiPietro may never have become a star in this league, but he had become in the very least a mid-tier starting goalie. That all changed with the injuries, really starting back with when he re-injured his hip in the All-Star Game Skills Competition.

That required surgery, rehab from that led to a knee injury, rehab from that led to a chronic knee “inflammation” that put him constantly on the mend and visibly altered his game. Once relying on his athleticism to cover errors, he could no longer do that. It was painful to watch, because it was a guy who was doing everything he could to regain physical health and help the team, but also hurting the team with that performance.

That he was able to win any games during those years — for example a 20-save shutout of the Devils where he was hardly tested — is a testament to the fact goaltending quality is determined not by single “big” games here and there, but by what a goalie can do with some consistency over the long haul. The Islanders have yet to find that in a replacement.

Keefe: The Team USA front office and selection committee got several things wrong when it came to picking the 2014 team to go to Sochi, but they didn’t get anything more wrong than leaving Kyle Okposo off the team. The 25-year-old Minnesota native has 23 goals and 34 assists in 54 games this season on the Islanders’ top line and he has two more points (57) than Team USA members Ryan Callahan and Derek Stepan have combined (55). I’m not saying Callahan shouldn’t have been left off the team (according to the ESPn article he was clearly an untouchable on the roster), but I’m not sure how Stepan or Blake Wheeler or even Max Pacioretty made it over Okposo. I hope Team USA doesn’t look like the John Tortorella Rangers in the Olympics and have trouble scoring more than one goal.

What are your thoughts on Okposo getting snubbed from Team USA?

Jansky: I thought it was the wrong call, but I also think USA is at least to the point where they have so much depth that “snubs” like this can reasonably happen. He’s done nothing but continue to play great after the snub, but as an Islanders fan I’m happy he’ll be resting and getting some time with his newborn while USA goes Full Tortorella.

The thought reported by ESPN that Okposo can’t handle the big Olympic sheet is comical, as anyone who saw him in college — where more than half his games were on wide ice — can attest.

Keefe: The Islanders fans that I know seem to be split when it comes to head coach Jack Capuano and whether or not he is the right man to lead the Islanders for the future. I know people believe that he is tied at the hip to general manager Garth Snow and that Capuano isn’t going anywhere, but should he if the Islanders fail to make the playoffs this season? Are you pro-Capuano or anti-Capuano?

Jansky: I guess I’d call myself agnostic on Capuano, though I find myself defending him mainly because some of the critiques of him are idiotic or based on pure fan frustration.

First, I believe coaches can only affect a certain amount, and the Islanders definitely have bigger issues in goal and on defense. A coach can hurt when he “loses the team,” when he refuses to play good players, or when he overplays bad players (Andrew MacDonald, the fourth line). While Capuano does some of the latter two, it’s not really more than pretty much every coach who has his favorites and specific roles for players. Meanwhile, the former has never happened; his teams always come to play. They are rarely blown out. They show up for him, and their offense and breakouts are evidence of a team that does have a plan of attack (the knock on him is some sort of caricature of a bumbling fool, which is asinine).

Is he the perfect coach? No. (There aren’t many of those.) Is he hurting the team measurably? Also no. Do they show up for him? Yes. So I’m fine with him for now, though I believe one of the league’s elite coaches could of course maximize the roster even better, and they may need that if they are ever to reach the next level. But the common fan complaint now lacks an essential thing: An elite replacement. I wouldn’t have him fired just to bring in some other recycled coach who has “experience” etc.

Keefe: As a Rangers fan, I hated the Islanders’ trade for Thomas Vanek, but as a hockey fan, I loved it. I liked the front office’s decision to give the 2013-14 season a “win now” feel to it by trading Matt Moulson, a 2014 conditional first-round pick and a 2015 second-round pick even if the decision to trade for a rental could come back to screw them if they couldn’t build on their 2012-13 first-round exit. But after a rough start with the Islanders, Vanek’s line along with John Tavares and Kyle Okposo has become the best-scoring line in the NHL and not only has he helped saved the Islanders’ season, but he is making sure that some team pays him well in free agency this offseason.

What were your thoughts on the Vanek deal and do you think he will be with the Islanders after this season?

Jansky: I thought they spent a little much to get him and I think the greater needs were in goal and on defense, but I appreciate the bold theory of going after him. The Isles have trouble getting the top free agents, so here was a chance to exclusively recruit a good one for several months before he hits the market. So far, that approach has worked as Vanek’s impression of Long Island and the organization has been very good.

I’d call it 50/50 on whether he is an Islander after this season, or even after the trade deadline. And as much as I appreciate his offense, I’m not sure it will be a disaster if he doesn’t remain. The Isles have shown an ability to get many wingers who work on the Tavares line, and the biggest thing keeping it from being among the league’s absolute best is the defensive side of the game. That’s not an area Vanek really excels at. So despite their gaudy numbers, they are at risk of being outscored just like the team overall.

Keefe: The last two times these two teams met, the Islanders won both games 5-3 with the last win coming just a week ago. The two rivals will not only meeting on Wednesday night at Yankee Stadium, but again on Friday night at Madison Square Garden. What kind of game and effort do you expect in the outdoor game on Wednesday night?

Jansky: Well it should be a good one, as New York derbies almost always are. I don’t see why both teams won’t deliver a great effort. I suspect the Rangers have the advantage, having played on this rink already. Maybe the Islanders get some advantage of adrenaline based on novelty — could the Rangers really dread playing in the cold again? — but I expect the Rangers to be able to play a safer, conservative game on the unpredictable outdoor ice and take advantage of Islanders mistakes.

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Rangers

Jan 25, 2014

Rangers-Devils Rivalry Heads to River Ave.

The Rangers and Devils meet in the first of the two Stadium Series games at Yankee Stadium and that calls for an email exchange with John Fischer of In Lou We Trust.

The Rangers gave the Devils their first win of the season back on Oct. 19. Since then, they have given the Devils two more wins (Nov. 12 and Dec. 7) and are 0-2-1 against them this season. When the two teams meet again, it will be under much different conditions where the New York January elements will be a major factor.

With the Rangers and Devils set to play in the first of the two Stadium Series games at Yankee Stadium on Sunday, I did an email exchange with John Fischer of In Lou We Trust to talk about how the Devils have rebounded from their disastrous start, how the team has recovered from the loss of Ilya Kovalchuk with the performances from their older players and what to expect from the Metropolitan rivals in the Bronx.

Keefe: The Devils’ leading scorer is 41 years old and averages .78 points per game. Their second-leading scorer has seven goals and is 37 years old. Their 41-year-old goalie has a 2.36 goals against average and .905 save percentage and has played in the majority of the team’s games. They lack elite scoring, big-time playmakers, superstars and All-Stars and didn’t win their first game until the eighth game of the season (against the Rangers, of course) and had one win in their first 10 games. Yet here they are on Jan. 24 with a winning record at 21-19-11 and are just three points out of the playoff picture. The Rangers wouldn’t have been able to come half of the adversity the Devils have this season and probably would have just packed it in and kept on losing after the disastrous start to the season. The roster keeps changing (except in goal), but the Devils continue to succeed. How does Lou Lamoriello keep doing this?

Fischer: Magic. No, seriously, I believe the New Jersey Devils are a lot more analytical than they let on. Having one or two seasons where they’re strong in possession or defense is one thing. To continually be ahead of their opponents in terms of stinginess or attempts at evens across multiple coaches and players strongly suggests that they’re monitoring and judging players on how well they do at both. The point totals for Travis Zajac and Adam Henrique may not be gaudy, but they do so well in both ends of the rink that they garnered big contracts. I don’t think other teams would have done that, but I’m confident the organization values players beyond how many points they earn.

The shortened 2013 season was a good example of how being a strong possession team keeps teams competitive even when the bounces don’t go their way. They really weren’t eliminated until the last few weeks of the season. Even so, they put up a fight nearly every night; they just couldn’t score any goals. This season, the shooting percentage is far better and they remain strong in possession; but they are just terrible at generating shots. Since most of the current roster are veterans, Peter DeBoer has been behind the bench for now three seasons, and Lou Lamoriello has seen it all, then this is a squad that knows not to get too frustrated or down on themselves if there’s a bad run of games or they go weeks without scoring much. So that has helped preventing 2013-14 from spiraling out of control. Granted, they continue to play on a knife’s edge given the Metropolitan Division and how so many of their games are decided by a goal and/or post-regulation play. But it keeps them in it and likely will through this season.

Keefe: I thought it was a report from The Onion when I heard that Ilya Kovalchuk was retiring from the NHL at the age of 30 and leaving 12 years and $77 million remaining on his contract with the Devils. But then when I heard he wanted to return home to play in the KHL it made sense.

To me, Kovalchuk was always the most underrated superstar in the league. With 108 goals by the age of 21 after his first three years in the league, following the 2003-04 season it seemed like Kovalchuk would be one of the premier names in the league for well over the next decade. But after the lockout, Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin emerged, took over as the faces of the league and Kovalchuk was pushed aside and somewhat forgotten about because of the other two and because of where he played. In seven years in Atlanta, Kovalchuk went to the playoffs just once (2006-07) and that trip lasted four games with a sweep at the hands of the Rangers. And then in his eighth season in Atlanta, he was put on the block.

When Kovalchuk became available, I wanted the Rangers to be in on the wing whose lowest season goal total was 29, which came when he was 18 years old. The Rangers needed pure scoring (and they still do unless Rick Nash is going to score two goals a game for the rest of the season), but they weren’t able to trade for him and he instead went to the worst possible place for the Rangers.

Kovalchuk left the NHL with exactly a point-per-game average for his career (816 points in 816 games) and left New Jersey after playing in 222 games over four seasons, but he left a massive reliable scoring hole for the team.

How devastated were you about Kovalchuk leaving? What are your thoughts now after more than half a season in the post-Kovalchuk era?

Fischer: I was honestly shocked. I needed to read Tom Gulitti tweet that it wasn’t a joke. The initial reaction was summed up by Mike Stromberg perfectly: What? I’ve written further about the announcement later in the day after a few hours to take it all in. Even if Kovalchuk stayed, scoring goals figured to be a big challenge. Unfortunately, that fear came true as the Devils are among the league’s lowest scoring teams. I wrote back in July that in the long run it may not be a big deal. But in the short term like this season, the Devils absolutely miss a high-shooting winger who oozes skill. The Devils’ power play, one of the worst in the league at generating shots, absolutely misses Kovalchuk at the point. It may have been a regular play to set up a one timer to him but at least they had a regular play. The Devils really could use more offensive production from the wings and that’s what Kovalchuk would normally provide.

That all said, I really do not want Kovalchuk to come back to the league or the Devils. He made his choice to back out of his deal and take a better one with an inferior league. He’d rather be the biggest fish in the smaller pond. That’s fine but I want him to live with that choice. I believe they will find productive players through free agency and the draft later such that he team will not need him in a few years. So I’d rather have the Devils suffer without him in the short term.

Keefe: Martin Brodeur has played 1,247 regular-season games and 205 playoff games. He has been in an NHL net for 86,130 minutes or 1,435 hours and 30 minutes or 59.8 days. He’s 41 years old, has played in 27 of 51 games this year and has a 2.36 goals against average and .905 save percentage. He’s going to play forever, isn’t he?

Fischer: No, he’s not. For the first few months of this season, Cory Schneider has been held back due to playing well while Martin Brodeur was playing well or not playing well when Brodeur was not playing well. In November, Schneider and Brodeur weere both great. In December, Schneider was poor and Brodeur was poorer except for a handful of great games. It wasn’t until this month where Schneider has improved whereas Brodeur really didn’t. As a result, Schneider’s started seven games this month (with a .960 save percentage) to Brodeur’s four (at an .890 save percentage). It’s not that Brodeur can’t have a good game anymore or that the team can’t win with him. It’s that he’s not consistently good enough while Schneider has been. So more and more fans want Schneider to be the regular starter. I think we will see that come to fruition after the Olympic break. After this season, I wouldn’t be surprised if Brodeur calls it a career. It’s not as if he has anything left to prove. But then he hasn’t had anything to prove for years now.

Keefe: The first Stanley Cup I remember watching was the 1990-91 Cup when I was four years old and my mom woke me up to see the Penguins celebrating their championship. Jaromir Jagr was on that team and was 19 when he first got his name on the Cup and a year later he got his name on it for a second time. The 1990-91 finals was 23 years ago. I said 23 years ago. Jaromir Jagr is still playing in the NHL.

When the Devils signed Jaromir Jagr during the offseason, I thought it was a necessary move to try and add scoring following the departure of Kovalchuk. Jagr did have 35 points in 45 games last season and 54 points in 73 games for the Flyers in 2011-12. I thought he would have to be a complimentary piece given his age and not his name, considering his last 20-plus goal season in the NHL was six years ago with the Rangers.

Jaromir Jagr will be 42 on Feb. 15 with no signs of slowing down. How long can he do this for?

Fischer: Admittedly, I was not a fan of the Jaromir Jagr signing. I thought it was rushed in part of Kovalchuk’s decision to quit on the team. I didn’t think he would have much left in the proverbial tank. As I wrote back in July, I wasn’t confident that he would be a significant scorer. Well, I look foolish now since he’s the team’s leading scorer with 42 points in 52 games. He leads the team in goals (16), assists (26), and shots (130). He’s been excellent in possession; he’s not just picking up points and doing little else. He actually has been seen in the defensive end of the rink trying to do something. Most impressively, he plays down low so, so well. Jagr essentially posts-up defenders and works very hard along the perimeter. He maybe lost a step or two speed-wise, but he’s still strong enough to battle with the toughest of defenders, skilled enough to make some of them look stupid, and smart enough to know when to pass it out or continue control of the puck. He’s 42 by birth, but he’s playing like a game-hardened 29-year-old looking to earn a fat contract this summer. I am enamored with how he’s been playing with the Devils this season. I’m at a point where I wouldn’t think it would be a terrible idea if the Devils re-signed him. Father Time always wins but Jagr has put in monumental effort to defy him as long as he has been doing. I hope he can continue playing like this through the rest of this season and, honestly, nothing that I’ve seen from him suggests he won’t or can’t.

Keefe: The Devils started the season 0-4-3 before they hosted the Rangers. The Rangers were in the seventh game of their season-opening nine-game road trip and lost 4-0 to give the Devils their first win of the season. Nearly a month later, the Rangers lost to the Devils again, this time 3-2. And nearly a month after that, the Rangers lost to the Devils again, this time 4-3 in overtime. Each Rangers-Devils game this season has come following a Rangers win and the Devils have stopped them from building a winning streak or have stopped their current winning streak. What kind of game do you expect on Sunday and what are you feelings on the Stadium Series game?

Fischer: I expect an absolutely fantastic game on Sunday. Devils-Rangers games are always big affairs. The Devils and Rangers legitimately don’t like each other. The Rangers are surely peeved that they haven’t beaten the Devils yet this season. The Devils organization from top to bottom despises the Rangers. On top of that, the game is important in the short term. With a win, the Devils can catch the Rangers in the standings. The Rangers dropped their last two and, as we are seeing from the Capitals, a losing streak is a fast ticket down the Metropolitan. They want to avoid dropping three games regardless of the rivalry. Throw all of that onto a massive national stage and you have the makings for a regular season classic. I’m looking forward to being there, but I will admit a win will make it even more worthwhile to attend.

That all said, both teams aren’t big scoring teams and they are strong possession teams this season. I expect it to go like the two games at MSG: a close, perilous affair where one or two bounces or defensive miscues makes the difference. I wish Schneider was starting this one, then I’d feel even better about the Devils’ chances. I hope Brodeur and the team makes my concerns be wrong.

Blogs • Email Exchanges • NFL

Jan 21, 2014

The Last Night of the Patriot Dynasty

When the Patriots’ season comes to an end, the best thing to do is an email exchange with Mike Hurley and this time we look at what has happened to the Tom Brady-Bill Belichick dynasty.

The Patriots’ season ended with an AFC Championship Game loss in Denver and a year from now when the 2014 NFL playoffs are happening, it will be a decade since the Patriots’ last championship.

Since I met Mike Hurley from CBS Boston back in 2009, we have spent an inordinate amount of time talking about the Patriots’ dynasty and how 2001 to the present day has mirrored what the Yankees endured from 2001-2008. So with the Patriots’ latest run at a fourth Super Bowl being stopped by Peyton Manning and the Broncos, it made sense to send Hurley an email about the Tom Brady-Bill Belichick era.

Keefe: I have been thinking since Sunday night how we are going to open our book The Last Night of the Patriot Dynasty. I have had a few ideas of how to best start what will be a magnificent piece of literature, but I figured it would be best to consult with you over the opening

The only difference with our book and Buster Olney’s book (The Last Night of the Yankee Dynasty), which we plan on modeling ours after, is that he had a definitive answer to when the last night of the 1996-2001 dynasty was. So I guess my first question would be: When was the last night of the Patriot dynasty?

Was it that 2005 playoff loss to the Broncos? Was it the 2006 AFC Championship Game loss to the Colts? Was it the Super Bowl XLII loss to the Giants? Was it Sunday night in Denver? Before we get into the Tom Brady-Bill Belichick era and whether or not the duo will ever get that fourth Super Bowl, I need to know when the dynasty ended. Or has it not ended?

Hurley: Hi, Neil. As I read through your email, I could see a vivid picture of you wearing a gleeful smile while tap-tap-tapping away at your keyboard, typing about the downfall of the Patriots. This ought to be a fun time.

To me, the dynasty ended in Denver in 2005, but only in retrospect. At the time, you couldn’t have known the dynasty was over, because they could have gone on to win in ’06 and ’07, and they would have had five Super Bowls seven years. The dynasty would have been alive and well.

But by my definition of a dynasty (there’s no real definition), you have to win championships in clusters. And the Patriots haven’t done that for nine years running.

Keefe: Nine years seems like a long time because it’s Tom Brady and Bill Belichick and the Tom Brady/Bill Belichick Patriots we’re talking about. I know how long that can feel because I watched the Derek Jeter/Mariano Rivera/Jorge Posada/(somewhat) Andy Pettitte Yankees go nine years without a championship while spending a bajillion dollars trying to win one from 2001-2008. But really when you think about it, nine years isn’t long at all for one team to go championship-less. I bet in the offseason leading into the 1970 NFL season, the Jets thought they had a team capable of repeating. Now here we are 45 years since Joe Namath upset the Baltimore Colts and the Jets have never even gone back to the Super Bowl, let alone win it again.

But when you win three in four years, make two more since then and lose three AFC Championship Games since then and your only “down” season in the last decade happened to be when your franchise quarterback was knocked out for the year in the first game of the season and his backup (who hadn’t started since high school) went 11-5, there’s going to be pressure. There has been this aura around the 2005-2013 Patriots the way there was for the 2001-2008 Yankees in that everyone just always expected them be there in the end because that’s what they had gotten used to. But like the Patriots’ heartbreaking losses in the 2006 AFC Championship Game, Super Bowl XLII and Super Bowl XLVI, the Yankees had the 2001 World Series, 2003 World Series and 2004 ALCS.

Last week you wrote about how Boston sports fans shouldn’t take for granted the run the Patriots are on, even if they were to lose on Sunday (which they did) and that other organizations would do unthinkable things just to reach the playoffs, let alone assume they are going to be in the AFC Championship Game.

So why is it that the Patriots are viewed as having a letdown year once again after going 12-4, winning the AFC East again, earning a first-round bye and winning a divisional round game? Are Boston fans who are on life tilt being ridiculous?

Hurley: I think anyone who is freaking out about the loss is definitely overreacting, and as much as I believe that it’s incredibly rare for a team to be able to accomplish this kind of sustained success in terms of winning seasons, I think the Patriots will forever be a victim of their own success. It wouldn’t make sense for all the fans to be happy with just reaching the conference title game when that team built its reputation as a regular Super Bowl champion.

On top of that is the fact that the Patriots no doubt left at least one but maybe two Super Bowls on the board. They should have won in ’06, but they flat-lined in Indy, and they should have won in ’07, but they got smacked in the mouth and had no idea how to respond. And on top of THAT, you’ve got the ever-present reality that the “window is closing” for Brady. Surrounding him with rookies (Aaron Dobson, Kenbrell Thompkins) and nobodies (hi, Matthew Mulligan) while kicking Wes Welker to the curb is a really odd way for the Patriots to do business when their quarterback is 36 years old.

So I think you add all those things together, and that explains most of why people are upset around here. But I think folks will have a much bigger problem with the way things are after Brady retires. That’s not going to be very fun.

Keefe: Well, at this rate, maybe Brady will never retire? I think it would be better that way. Just like I think it would be better if Derek Jeter plays forever and if this whole Mariano Rivera retirement thing were just a big joke.

When it comes to Brady, it’s definitely weird that his receiving corps without Rob Gronkowski is atrocious. Julian Edelman became the newest version of Wes Welker (I’m only saying that because I know how much you hate when people say that) and he was a defensive back being asked to defend Victor Cruz two years ago. Danny Amendola didn’t really pan out this year the way people thought he would when Welker left (maybe I can insert our GChat conversation about Amendola) and someone named Matthew Mulligan caught a touchdown pass this season.

The Broncos clearly see their window built around Peyton Manning and have planned accordingly by giving him more receiving threats than the entire AFC East has combined. What I don’t get is how the Patriots don’t realize their window is built around their quarterback as well and all they have done since their last championship is continue to take away each of his favorite receivers. They didn’t want to pay Deion Branch and it cost them in 2006. They got rid of Randy Moss in 2010 for nothing. They low-balled Wes Welker. Why do the Patriots operate this way?

Hurley: Back in the Branch days, Belichick likely felt invincible. Winning three Super Bowls tends to have that effect. All that needless game of hardball did was take a surefire championship away from Brady and the Patriots. Reche Caldwell and Doug Gabriel didn’t work out — who could have known??!!

Moss was different because his skills declined rapidly and he had no idea how to adjust. He became a jackass and they got rid of him as quickly as possible.

Other notable negotiations gone wrong came with two staples of the franchise — Vince Wilfork and Logan Mankins. Both eventually agreed to long-term deals, with Mankins even becoming the highest-paid guard in the league, but the Patriots didn’t make it easy.

And then there is Welker. I contended immediately after he signed with Denver that it was something personal with Bill, and that much was essentially confirmed Monday when Belichick went out of his way to call out Wes for “one of the worst plays I’ve seen.” It was a simple football play that was worthy of a flag only because of its timing, and Bill wants to make it out to be aggravated assault. What a joke.

If Bill wants to be mad about something, he should mad at the GM who treated the franchise leader in receptions and the best friend of the Hall of Fame quarterback like a piece of dirt, all but begging him to leave via free agency. But, well, Bill is the GM, and I’m not sure he’s excellent at that job. Great coach for sure, and he made a good number of key signings to complement those Super Bowl rosters, but he hasn’t been able to build a championship team since losing the players left over from the Parcells/Carroll eras.

Keefe: Tom Brady started his postseason career with a 10-0 record and is since 8-8. No, he doesn’t play defense (like Plaxico), but aside from that blowout of the Tim Tebow Broncos in 2011, he has put together a stretch of mediocre playoff games.

On Sunday, he admitted he wishes there was more he could have done to help the team and this was a week after the Patriots destroyed the Colts with their running game, a game in which Brady wasn’t asked to do much. And on Sunday, Brady seemed way off the mark on deep balls that would have changed the momentum, feel and potentially the outcome of the games on throws he would have complete in the pass. Was that on TB12 or the cast of receiving characters we mentioned earlier?

No athlete gets better with age, especially as they approach 40. Well, unless their name is Barry Bonds and their fitted hat size suddenly becomes 19 1/4. I don’t think Tom Brady is done. Far from it. But how do you explain these last few years of postseason mediocrity?

Hurley: Well this weekend, I think Brady was just OK. He didn’t go all Andy Dalton on us, but with his team having so much less talent than the Broncos, Brady needed to be exceptional. And he wasn’t. It was likely a combination of being sick and also the fact that weird things happen to Brady and the Patriots every time they go to Denver. In the Brady/Belichick era, they’re now 2-5 in Denver, and that includes two devastating playoff losses. But still, if he hadn’t been throwing to Michael Hoomanawanui, Matthew Mulligan (he only had 23 catches at Maine) and Matthew Slater, he probably would have at least put together a more impressive statistical output.

You are discounting his 344-yard, 3-touchdown day against a pretty good Houston defense in last year’s divisional round, but yes, Brady’s been a pretty average quarterback in the playoffs going all the way back to the 2007 AFC Championship Game. I think each game has its own reasons. The Baltimore playoff games, in which the Patriots are 1-2, always seem to come on frigid, windy days that are unfriendly to quarterbacks. In the Jets loss in 2010, Brady threw an interception for the first time in three full months, and he looked like he had no confidence for the rest of the night. Justin Tuck ate him alive in the Super Bowl and made the quarterback’s job tough that night, and on Sunday I think he just didn’t have anything.

I don’t think he’s done either, as he’ll be 37 years old next season. Peyton Manning is 37 and he seems to be doing pretty well out there in Denver. I really think Belichick needs to feel the urgency (like, starting right this very second) to “load up” like he did in 2007. There aren’t a ton of great free agents available (Emmanuel Sanders, Eric Decker might be at the top of the heap), but back in ’07, Randy Moss wasn’t available. Belichick got him anyway.

I think the time is now to make a huge move for a great receiver (will Larry Fitzgerald squander his entire career in Arizona?), add another two in free agency, and give Brady the tools to actually compete. If they don’t do it now, we may never see Brady win another Super Bowl. And whether you love him or hate him, you have to admit that’s a tremendous waste of Hall of Fame talent.

Keefe: It’s a tremendous waste of talent because I do like Tom Brady because he’s a Yankees fan, but I’m happy the Patriots continue to not give him the necessary pieces to succeed because if they were to give him real NFL receivers, it would mean happiness for Boston sports fans.

Six years ago, the Patriots were one win away from football immortality and Tom Brady was one win away from ending any conversation or debate as to who the best quarterback of all time is. A fourth Super Bowl in seven years to cap off a perfect season would have been one of the most unbelievable accomplishments in the history of professional sports. And even though the Patriots didn’t win that game, he still had the chance to get that fourth Super Bowl two years ago against the Giants once again.

He still has the three Super Bowls, but they came nine, 10 and 12 years ago. He’s certainly in the conversation as the best ever, but he isn’t the definitive answer he could have been. So what are we to make of Tom Brady’s legacy now even if the book isn’t closed on him yet?

Hurley: I had to deal with seeing the word “legacy” thrown around 24/7 last week in advance of the AFC title game, so thanks for bringing that back. Really, thanks.

Winning another one surely would augment his resume (obviously), but no matter what he’s done in the past nine years and no matter what he will do for the next three, it doesn’t erase the past. And that past has him winning three Super Bowls, which is something only three other guys have done in the history of the sport. You’re right about ’07, and that night will go down as the biggest missed opportunity in NFL history. The 1972 Dolphins might not even have been that great for all I know, but they’re still famously celebrated today, 40-plus years later, for their perfect season. The 2007 Patriots team was going to be that, with two extra wins, with the best quarterback ever, in the best offense ever. They were going to be the best team in the sport’s history, yet because they couldn’t match the Giants’ effort, they became just another Super Bowl loser.

So yeah, Brady’s LEGACY won’t be what it could have been, and maybe should have been. But he’s still right there in the special group of the best quarterbacks of all time. I’m not saying he’s better than Joe Montana, but what often gets lost in his 4-0 record in Super Bowls is his overall postseason record of 16-7. Brady’s record is 18-8.

Fortunately, Ryan Mallett doesn’t look like he’s quite as talented as Steve Young, so Brady should get his chances to write the final chapters of his LEGACY with the Patriots before his WINDOW CLOSES.

Keefe: The Patriots have won 176 games since the start of the 2001 season, including 18 playoff games, but the two times you had trips to the Super Bowl on the line in the last two AFC Championship Games, they lost. The loss on Sunday cost you a trip to New York City.

Here in New York, it’s been hockey season and only hockey season since Nov. 24 when the Giants lost to the Cowboys. It’s hockey season in Boston now too. Maybe I will see you on March 2 at Madison Square Garden for Rangers-Bruins. Between now and then, think about how we should open our book.

Hurley: I have a pretty strong suggestion for the book cover: Friggin’ Jay Alford.

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Rangers

Jan 16, 2014

Rangers-Red Wings Isn’t So Rare Anymore

The Red Wings are at Madison Square Garden for the first time in almost two years and that calls for an email exchange with “J.J. from Kansas” of Winging It In Motown.

It feels like Rangers-Red Wings never happens. That’s partially because it rarely has until now. The two teams met this season on Oct. 26, but thanks to the lockout last year, they didn’t meet at all in 2012-13 and just once a season prior to that. So when the two Original Six teams meet on Thursday night at Madison Square Garden, it will feel more important than a normal regular-season game and that’s because it kind of is. Thankfully with realignment, we will get more than just one Rangers-Red Wings game a year now.

With the Rangers and Red Wings playing for the second of three times this season, I did an email exchange with “J.J. from Kansas” of Winging It In Motown to talk about the Red Wings playing in the Eastern Conference, how they were portrayed in 24/7 leading up to the Winter Classic and what’s been going on with them over the last six weeks.

Keefe: After a long, long time as an Eastern Time Zone team playing in the Western Conference, the Red Wings are where they should be when it comes to alignment thanks to the realignment. The Red Wings might be out of place in the “Atlantic” division, but at least they are in the right place when it comes to traveling. (The Red Wings shouldn’t feel too awkward about playing in the “Atlantic” with Columbus and Carolina being considered “Metropolitan.”)

What were you feelings about the Red Wings’ move back to normality and playing in their own time zone when the plans were announced? And what do you think of the realignment now 46 games into the change?

J.J.: Being honest about the switch to the East, since I’m in the Central Time Zone, it wasn’t really a big deal to me, but I always liked the concept. I especially liked that the schedule-making would adjust to leave the Wings with only two trips out West where we’d have games starting at 10 p.m. EST or later. Ultimately I was happy that the travel schedule wouldn’t be as brutal for Detroit, but this never felt to me as the eventual correction of old wrongs like it has to much of the older generation of Wings fans who didn’t grow up with the Central Division.

This season has been a weird, bittersweet experience for me. I haven’t experienced the weird playoff quirks yet, but I do like the new realignment plan as far as it’s worked on the NHL regular season. The adjustment has come in how I watch games on off days for the Wings. I’ve always preferred to watch division rivals’ games and root for whichever outcome would most benefit the Wings. In doing that, I didn’t watch a ton of Eastern Conference hockey in the last few years and as a result, it’s almost been a culture shock for me readjusting to a bunch of uniforms, players, and styles I to which I haven’t grown accustomed (not to mention half a league’s worth of local announcers). In the West, I can still pick out which line is on the ice for teams based solely on how the forwards skate. I haven’t gotten used to that yet in the East save for a few of the very familiar or standout players (the Penguins, Rick Nash and Phil Kessel).

Keefe: There isn’t a bigger 24/7 fan than me and I hope that my dream of it being stretched into covering a team for a full season will one day be realized. (Kind of like what ESPN did with The Season and the Red Wings in 2002-03 and the Avalanche in 2003-04, only better.) Who wouldn’t want a full season of the show?

Two years ago when the Rangers and Flyers were the stars of 24/7 for their Winter Classic in Philadelphia, it made the show that much better having “my” team be covered in depth for a month. This year you had “your” team as one of the co-stars of the four-episode series. What did you think about how the Red Wings were portrayed?

J.J.: I’d LOVE to see a full season of 24/7 … centered around somebody else. I don’t know if I’m just looking for excuses or my dumb caveman brain is sliding a bit of causation into the correlation between the Red Wings being on 24/7 and the Red Wings playing like crap in the weeks where the HBO cameras were following them around, but it seemed that while the cameras were rolling, the Red Wings were just not comfortable.

Overall, I think HBO did the best they could with the Wings, but I’m caught between wanting to have seen much more and wanting to respect that they’re professional hockey players and stay away from their private lives. I would have loved to have seen more of Pavel Datsyuk, but he’s a private guy and if he doesn’t want to deal with the HBO cameras that much, then so be it.

Keefe: This season of the show gave me a better understanding of the Red Wings and there were three things I really took away from it (aside from disliking Dion Phaneuf more). The first was how strong of a presence Mike Babcock has with the team and the organization. I have long thought that Babcock is the best head coach in the league (and that’s likely why he is also the Team Canada coach), but my opinion was only reinforced with the show and the way he handles managing his team on and off the ice.

The second was how badly the Red Wings have been crushed by the injury bug over the first half of season. Sure, the Rangers lost their best two players in Rick Nash for 17 games in October and November and Henrik Lundqvist for a week in October, and you could throw Ryan Callahan in there too, who has also missed 17 games. But those injuries are nothing compared to what the Red Wings have endured. Seeing Babcock write and re-write and erase the names on his lines and depth chart whiteboard was remarkable and almost made me feel like he was managing the 2013 Yankees and their injury bug. I guess I know why the Red Wings are a point out of the playoff picture.

And the last thing would be the way Pavel Datsyuk and Henrik Zetterberg are perceived by the younger players on the team, almost as if the younger players haven’t grasped the idea that they are in the NHL and playing with Datsyuk and Zetterberg. The way the younger players glowingly talk about the duo and look up to them shows how the team has changed and turned over since the two entered the league 12 and 13 years ago.

J.J.: As the Wings have seemingly come farther away from Stanley Cup contention in the last few years, the fan base has grown a bit restless with Babcock. He’s never given the local writers much of a glimpse behind the scenes and has always done a great job dodging attempts to get the kind of glimpses that reporters could run with on a story. We’ve always had a bit of a sense as to when he was either taking blame or sending a message to the media about his players, but without the behind the scenes access from 24/7, all we really had was a picture of a cagey coach who favors veterans to youngsters without any real in-depth explanation. Seeing how he interacted with the team, especially the youngsters, has been a big positive for me this season.

As far as the injuries, I’m among the fans asking for an audit of the Red Wings’ procedures as far as training and conditioning goes. I know that the common joke is that the Red Wings are old, but the rate of injuries and the type that we’ve seen most common (groin) is just disconcerting.

I think personally that part of the younger players idolizing the core veterans was partially scripted to make up for the HBO cameras’ lack of access to Pavel Datsyuk and Henrik Zetterberg. Hank (our Hank), was featured in that segment where he’s skating on his pond, but that’s pretty much all you got from him. It is very clear that what earned Datsyuk and Zetterberg their way in the NHL was each of their work ethics (even the old guard guys like Steve Yzerman commented on it before they left) so if the youngsters look up to them that much, it’s just the personnel changing around them and not the attitude.

Keefe: It doesn’t seem like a team with Datsyuk and Zetterberg and Daniel Alfredsson (even a 40-year-old Alfredsson should struggle) and strong depth and secondary scoring options should struggle the way the Red Wings have for the first half of the season. Can the 20-16-10 start to the season and being on the playoff bubble be chalked up as a result of the incredible rash of injuries or is it something more than that?

J.J.: I hate to keep using injuries as an excuse, but the sheer amount of change that happens to the Wings as a result of them can’t be ignored. The Wings’ system is based on puck movement more than grinding and that’s the kind of players they have. when players switch in and out of the lineup or up and down lines, the timing of everything falls off just a little bit and puck possession can suffer. When you have so many injuries that you have to change the system to a more dump-and-chase style, then you’re facing the whammy that is the Red Wings aren’t a team that was specifically built for that system, so they have some guys playing in roles that they’re not as well-suited for.

Despite that, there are three issues which are not injury related which have also combined to hurt the Wings. The first is that the young defensive corps is still learning the ropes and do not deal with aggressive forechecking as well as more-veteran players do. This slows down transition and causes them to spend more time in their own end facing shots. Second, the play of Jimmy Howard has not been as dominant as it has and that has cost them some points. Finally, for whatever reason, the Red Wings are 1-7 in the shootout this year, which has also stripped them of points.

When everything adds up, the Red Wings are not as bad a bubble team as their record indicates. I don’t think that they’re a top contender, but a healthy Wings team that gets even a bit luckier is an upper mid-tier contender at least on par with a team like Montreal or Tampa.

Keefe: The last time the Rangers and Red Wings met (Oct. 26), the Rangers were finishing up their season-opening nine-game road trip and arrived in Detroit with a 2-6-0 record and were coming off back-to-back losses to the (at the time) lowly Devils and Flyers. After giving up a devastating late second-period goal to Daniel Alfredsson with 11 seconds left in the second to give the Red Wings a 2-1 lead, Mats Zuccarello scored just 2:18 into the third to tie the game. Then in overtime, Derick Brassard scored with 13 seconds left to give the Rangers the win and their first win in Detroit since Jan. 30, 1999. Yes, 1999! Once again … that’s 1-9-9-9!

This time the Rangers and Red Wings meet with the Rangers playing their best hockey of the season, despite their 2-1 home loss to the Lightning on Tuesday night (it was the first time the Rangers failed to score more at least two goals since Dec. 10, which is actually unbelievable considering it used to happen every other game). The Rangers have won eight of their last 12, earning 17 of a possible 24 points and taking over the first wild-card spot in the standings. The Red Wings, on the other hand, have traded wins and losses for nearly a month and have won consecutive games only once since the start of the December.

What has been going on with the Red Wings over the last six weeks as they come to Madison Square Garden on Thursday night?

J.J.: The recent play of the Red Wings is a reflection of what we’ve talked about above. Whether it’s injuries, distractions, and flat-out unimpressive play, Detroit isn’t a very good hockey club right now and their recent record shows that. At some point, they’re going to start getting healthier and more consistent and will start stringing victories together more often, but there’s not an expectation that’s going to happen this week. None of the injured forwards are expected back for Thursday’s game and in fact, the Wings will be without one of the best players they’ve had the last few weeks, as Tomas Tatar went back to Slovakia this week to attend his father’s funeral after playing both Saturday and Sunday with a heavy heart caused by his dad’s passing last Friday.

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Giants

Nov 22, 2013

The Season Comes Down To Giants-Cowboys Once Again

The Giants will play for their season on Sunday against the Cowboys and that calls for an email exchange with Dave Halprin of Blogging the Boys.

The first thing I do when the Giants’ schedule comes out is look for the Cowboys games the way I look for the Red Sox games when the Yankees’ schedule comes out. It’s an instinct. And this year when I saw that the Giants would be playing in Dallas in Week 1 I thought about all of the hype and anticipation that would be created for a rivalry game on Opening Night on Sunday Night Football, which in turn only added to the hype and anticipation. And when I saw that the Cowboys would come to MetLife in Week 12, I thought it would be the perfect time for a big 4:25 p.m. game with the division potentially on the line like the 2010 Week 10 game between the two teams in East Rutherford.

After the Giants started off the season with six straight losses and basically eliminated from the playoffs, I didn’t care about the remaining 10 games on the schedule and certainly didn’t care about the second meeting with the Cowboys on Nov. 24. But the Giants got the stars to perfectly align for them and their schedule and the results of other NFC East teams’ games and now at 4-6, they will finally play for their season on Sunday against the Cowboys.

With the Giants’ season once again coming down to needing a win at home against the Cowboys, I did an email exchange with Dave Halprin of Blogging the Boys to talk about the game, what’s happened to the Cowboys since Week 1 and whether or not Jason Garrett’s job is safe.

Keefe: The last time we talked was before the Sunday Night Football opener. The game turned into what I call the “Disaster in Dallas” after starting with an Eli Manning interception and not stopping until the Giants had turned the ball over six times in their 36-31 loss (a win for you).

Since then the Giants lost five more games and were proud owners of an 0-6 record heading into their Monday Night Football matchup with the Vikings. But then things changed.

Over the next five weeks, they won that game on Monday Night Football against Josh Freeman, beat Matt Bick (a combination of Matt Barkley and Michael Vick despite having lost to Nick Vick – a combination of Nick Foles and Michael Vick in Week 5), held off Tashad Pennings (a combination of Terrelle Pryor and Rashad Jennings) and got past Scott Tolzien. Everything broke right for the Giants with the Vikings quarterback-less, Vick and Foles being injured, Terrelle Pryor getting injured and Aaron Rodgers being out.

Yes, the Giants are now 4-6 and with a win against your Cowboys on Sunday they control their own destiny. But right now I’m not sure which Giants team to expect since they haven’t seen a real starting quarterback for a full game since losing to Jay Cutler and the Bears in Week 6 and maybe the team we have seen (mainly the defense) over the last four games isn’t a true indicator of who the Giants are or have become and the first six games are who they really are.

While the Giants have been fighting to get back into the race and the playoff picture, the Cowboys haven’t been able to run away with the NFC East (since if they had, we wouldn’t be having this email exchange) and why is that?

Halprin: The Cowboys have been as frustrating as ever in 2013. Handed a perfect opportunity to run away with the NFC East early this year, they bumbled and stumbled their way to a 5-5 record, allowing both the Eagles and Giants to get firmly back into the race. The Cowboys defense has been dreadful in most statistical categories except one: turnovers. If it wasn’t for that, the Cowboys would be in really bad shape. As it is, all those turnovers have helped to keep the scoring from the opposition to a slightly more manageable number.

The Cowboys hustle and scrap like crazy on defense, but they just aren’t very good. Offensively, the team has been in a slump recently. Plenty of people have come under fire for that including play-caller Bill Callahan and Tony Romo. There have been issues with both of their performances, so the question is did they get it straightened out over the bye week?

Keefe: The NFC East teams have a combined 18-23 record with a -97 point differential. Somehow despite having the division with the best all-around quarterbacks, the NFC East has transformed into what the NFC West was before the 49ers and Seahawks turned their franchises around over the last few years. In a division with Eli Manning, Tony Romo, Robert Griffin III and Michael Vick/Nick Foles it doesn’t seem fathomable that the NFC East could be the worst division in the league.

And with the emergence of Foles as the starting quarterback in Philadelphia and with the Eagles sitting atop the division at 6-5 and able to control their own destiny, do you believe they could win the division? Everyone is making it feel like the division comes down to this Giants-Cowboys game and that the winner of it will eventually on to win the division, but maybe that’s just the perception in New York? Who is the bigger obstacle for the Cowboys: the Giants or Eagles?

Halprin: I think that’s the perception in New York. Dallas realizes that it would be VERY beneficial for them to win in New York, but a loss, at least from a math point of view, doesn’t come close to eliminating the Cowboys from contention.

For a couple of weeks, Cowboys fans have been looking more at the season-ending game against the Eagles as a possible win-or-go home scenario for the NFC East. Dallas has played in two of those in the past two years in Week 17 (Giants in 2011 and Redskins in 2012), maybe it’s just destined that they will do it again this year with the Eagles.

Don’t get me wrong though, this game is huge for both teams and we know it. Dallas needs to get some confidence going again after getting blasted by the Saints and it needs to happen this week. If they lose, it’s possible it could start a chain-reaction demise in Dallas.

Keefe: Jerry Jones gave Jason Garrett his vote of confidence this week, which means absolutely nothing. How many times in sports do coaches or managers get a vote of confidence only to be fired later?

Right now, Garrett has a 26-24 career record as head coach of the Cowboys with a 5-3 finish to the 2010 season, 8-8 seasons in 2011 and 2012 and now a 5-5 record this season. Nothing says mediocrity like being two games over .500 as a head coach, especially when coaching a team with as many elite offensive players as the Cowboys have had during his tenure. And after two third-place finishes in both of his full season as Cowboys head coach and with the possibility of not winning the NFC East in this down year, is there any truth to Jones’ statement that making the playoffs won’t impact Garrett’s future? I’m not sure he comes back even if the Cowboys do make the playoffs and don’t win a playoff game.

Halprin: If the Cowboys make the playoffs he’s coming back without a doubt. You can bet the farm on that. I think for Jason Garrett to not come back in 2014 Dallas would need to go 0-6 or 1-5 over these last six game. If the team bottoms out that badly, then Jerry will likely have no choice since the fan base would be in total revolt and he would have nothing statistically to say Jason is the guy. Of course Jerry might hang on to him anyway at that point just to prove a point, but I think the pressure to fire him would be immense.

If the Cowboys don’t make the playoffs but play well enough that it doesn’t look like Jason has lost the team or anything, then he will likely come back. Jerry has a lot invested in Garrett and he really wants him to succeed. Not just for the Cowboys, but so Jerry will look smart for hiring him, designating him a head-coach-in-waiting all the way back to when he hired him as offensive coordinator. He desperately wants to give him another year, so if the bottom doesn’t fall out, then he’ll likely bring him back.

Personally I agree Garrett should come back if the team contends and doesn’t fall apart even if they don’t make the playoffs. I actually think he’s got the culture of the franchise going in the right direction, and I think he knows what he needs to do to succeed. He just hasn’t gotten there yet. I’m willing to give him more time … unless he goes 0-6 to end the season!

Keefe: Two years ago in Dallas in Week 14, the Giants trailed by 12 with five minutes and 41 seconds left before pulling off a miraculous comeback to save their season. Then three weeks later in Week 17, the Giants hosted the Cowboys for a winner-take-all game for the division. The Giants won that game 31-14, won the NFC East and ran the table in the playoffs for the second time in five seasons.

If the Giants lose this game, their season is over with seven losses, two of them against the Cowboys, a 1-3 division record and a somewhat challenging five-game schedule to finish the season. Even if the Giants win this game, they are going to need help with the Eagles currently controlling their own destiny, so if the Giants lose this game they would need even more help and really too much help to reach the postseason.

For the Cowboys, a loss wouldn’t necessarily end their season, but I’m sure Cowboys fans and the media will react as if their season is over.

How is this game being treated and viewed in Dallas and what do you expect on Sunday?

Halprin: That’s the thing, if the Cowboys lose they are still mathematically very much alive, but for Dallas it goes deeper than that. They were manhandled by the Saints, embarrassed by them, and the offense has been struggling which is supposed to be the strength of the team. They, and the fan base, have had two weeks to sit and stew about that loss while also having to watch the Eagles grab the NFC East lead by half a game. It’s been a nightmare, and we’ll be without Sean Lee for at lest a few more games.

All of this has been building for the team and the fans, and now all that energy will be released on Sunday. Either the Cowboys will win and we’ll feel right back on tack, tied with the Eagles but with a 4-0 record inside the division. All will look rosy for getting back to the playoffs. If we lose, it will be a mega-disaster. The Cowboys are falling apart, they are losing the NFC East, this team can’t recover.

Emotionally, it will be an extreme response either way. But rationally, mathematically, winning puts us in a better position, but with plenty of room to blow it. And losing would drop us a bit, but by no means would be fatal. So that’s the split for us on Sunday.