Bleacher Report - Articles by Ryan Michael

Randy Orton Rips Into Kofi Kingston In What "Should" Be His Next WWE Promo

Ryan Michael — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:09:29 -0500

Monday Night Raw opens to a standing ovation as the people in Baltimore, Maryland await the introduction to the night's live event.

While it seems as though everyone in the arena is excited for the upcoming program, their dwells one man backstage who appears to be less than enthusiastic.

A video is played on the titantron to recap the events of the previous week's program which is then followed by an elaborate display of fireworks that works the crowd into frenzy.

Much to the disappointment of the thousands in attendance, the program begins (much as it did last week) with the sound of Randy Orton's entrance music.

Randy Orton begins to slowly make his way down to the ring, looking much different than he has in recent months.

His hair looks to be a little bit longer, his five o'clock shadow more pronounced, and he has gone back to wearing jeans (instead of trunks) with his usual "gas mask" t-shirt.

Gone is the generic "grumpy" Randy Orton facial expression which has been replaced with that evil look in his eyes (think back to the night he broke Batista's arm).

He makes his way into the ring and picks up the microphone to begin his promo...

"Kofi Kingston.

It saddens me that this issue between the two of us has had to continue, but then again, there are a number of things I regret having done over the past few weeks.

You know, my father always told me that there comes a time in life when a man has to take responsibility for his actions. And he was right.

It was wrong of me to jump you from behind the night after Bragging Rights.

I took an unsuspecting man and threw him off the stage in a fit of rage.

I'll admit it; I've been having a bit of an issue with self-control lately.

Had I taken the time to think things through, perhaps I wouldn't have let my issues with self-control dictate my actions.

For that Kofi Kingston, I must say that I am sorry.

I'm sorry for throwing you off of the stage like that, those actions were not fitting of a man who deserves to be champion.

I'm sorry Kofi Kingston, that I didn't do worse.

I allowed my issue with self-control to get the better of me.

Here I stood a 6'4 former champion and I pitied the little man who cost him team a victory at Bragging Rights.

Sure I was upset that you decided to interfere in my championship match with John Cena but it was my pity that allowed you to remain conscious.

My mistakes than managed to continue week after week.

I underestimated you which should come as little surprise. After all, what did I have to be intimidated by?

A man who has held the United States championship, the Intercontinental championship?

Santino Marella held the Intercontinental championship so don't even get me started Kofi Kingston!

Until Survivor Series, you had done absolutely nothing.

I've main-evented Wrestlemania, three times! You couldn't main event a house-show!

Your "fluke" victory over me at Survivor Series will prove to be your undoing.

Shawn Michaels might like to call himself the "main-event" but I am the one who has carried this company for the past two years!

When was the last time any of you people spent your hard earned money to buy a PPV that wasn't main-evented by me?

And now I have to deal you Kofi Kingston?

Your actions over the last few weeks have been reprehensible.

First you were upset that I attacked you instead of being grateful that I allowed you to remain an active part of this roster, so what did you do?

You decided to destroy my car!

You caused thousands of dollars worth of damage because you were upset that I got involved in your business after you got involved in mine.

Let me ask you something Kofi Kingston, do you really think I would have wasted my time putting my hands on you had you not gotten involved in my match?

But you did Kofi, you did decide to stick your nose in my business and for that you paid a price.

What kind of example were you setting for all these young children who look up to you when they see you destroying valuable property?

How many children do you think thought it was cool to see someone they look up to destroy a motor vehicle?

Now Kofi, it doesn't really matter to me what any of these people think of me, but at least I don't go around pretending to care.

Then, all those same people who look up to you, were the same people you put in danger a few weeks later.

Think back Kofi.

YOU decided to get involved in my business with Roddy Piper.

YOU decided to save someone who has done far worse things than I ever have and why?

So you could try to put your hands on me.

You knew you couldn't compete with me one on one so you decided that one of your typical "sneak attacks" would give you the upper hand.

But that Kofi Kingston, wasn't enough.

You could have faced me one on one in the ring but you were smart enough to take me out of my element.

The same ring that I have defeated countless legends in was not a place where you were brave enough to face me.

You had to bring the fight outside the ring and in the process you endangered the very people that seem to care about you.

It was YOU who threw me into the live crowd at Madison Square Garden.

It was YOU who brought a dangerous physical confrontation right next to the women and children in the audience.

It was all fair game to you so long as you got to instigate another fight.

You felt perfectly comfortable throwing punches next to a live crowd of people who had nothing to do with your little issue.

I tried to bring the fight back to the ring but you would have nothing of it.

You threw me back over the guard-rail a second time and continued to put all of those people in jeopardy."

Orton begins to draw a lot of heat from the crowd who are reacting as though his accusations are inaccurate.

He responds...

"You people think I'm making this up?

Roll the footage!"

The titantron plays the footage of Kofi Kingston's brawl with Randy Orton at Madison Square Garden.

"The footage doesn't lie Kofi.

It was YOU who decided to risk to well-being of all those fans, and for that you should be ashamed of yourself.

But our story didn't end there.

You picked up a "fluke" victory at Survivor Series, something that would NEVER happen if you were to face me one on one right here in the middle of this ring.

Then you cost me the chance to win back MY title last week.

So now the time has come Kofi Kingston.

As sick as it might make me to have to soil myself by competing against the likes of you, I'm willing to do it if it means I don't have to see your face ever again.

You can join Ric Flair and the countless other people I've put on the shelf by staying at home every Monday night and watching me continue to achieve my destiny.

My destiny is the WWE Championship, you're just a temporary fix.

After I take out whatever is left of you come TLC, the board of directors will have no choice but to give me another shot at my title.

You might not like it Kofi Kingston, but I want you to remember something important.

When you’re sitting at home, a broken man and your family wonders why you can't run quite as fast or why you can’t jump quite as high, I want you to tell them that it is because of the decisions that you made.

Allow your family to learn from your mistakes, allow yourself to be another example of what happens when someone decides to get involved in my business.

I might have apologized to you earlier tonight Kofi Kingston but I assure you that after I put you down as TLC, there will be no more apologies to be given.

That is, if you're even conscious enough to understand anything after I’m done with you."

Disclaimer:

Please be aware that the above scripted promo is 100 percent fictitious.

Randy Orton portrays a villainous character on television, therefore the promo is intended to be reflective of how such a character might choose to voice himself.

In no way do I endorse any of the comments or views presented within the promo as the entire script was created for the sole purpose of entertainment.

Thank you for your understanding.

Note to World Wrestling Entertainment:

Did you like the promo? If so, feel free to contact me directly at bleacherreporter@yahoo.com if you have any interest in my creative writing services.

Randy Orton: What Happened to the Evil That Once Made You Great?

Ryan Michael — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:18:24 -0500

We miss you, Randy Orton.

We really do.

It has been far too long since we have seen "the" Randy Orton that struck fear into the hearts of each and every person foolish enough to get in his way.

Don't you remember?

Readers, think back the beginning of 2009.

Think back to the time when the evolution of Randy Orton was something that kept you on the edge of your sofa each and every Monday night.

Sure, the script writers butchered a few angles (Shane McMahon's kitten-punches, IED, and Orton's law come to mind) but the total product was something fresh, something original, something...

Special.

Everything seemed to work.

The return from a broken collar-bone made you fresh, your new tattoos gave you attitude, and your facial expressions provided the video footage to match your deranged theme music.

This was the Randy Orton the WWE Universe couldn't get enough of.

Yet what do we have before us today?

The top heel on Raw?

I'll give you that.

Someone the people will "pay" to see?

Yep, you still got it.

The No. 1 guy in the industry?

Unquestionably (though those who embrace the right to be incorrect might beg to differ).

But someone to be afraid of?

No.

And it's a shame.

A shame that the WWE's finest script writers decided to turn you into a comic-book character.

"Here comes Randy Orton the bad guy, I hope Super Cena can defeat the villain."

That's the problem: Randy Orton should not be a villain, which is exactly what they've made him.

Kofi Kingston = good.

Randy Orton = bad.

Ryan Michael thinks...who cares?

Sure, it's nice to see the little guy stand triumphant but when it's all said and done, I feel as though I've watched a big sweaty version of a Saturday morning cartoon.

Way to go, PG-ratings.

Yet I yearn for the day when I can truly "care" about the WWE's Randy Orton product.

I stand by it, I'd buy it over and over again because my loyalty resides with the Superstar who has entertained me year after year.

That's called being a fan.

But when was the last time I sat and watched Raw, clutched my chest and said "What the f**k just happened?, I can't believe he just did that!"?

Where's the unpredictable Randy Orton?

You see, somewhere along the line Randy Orton ceased to be "the evil evolution of sports entertainment" and simply became a slithering snake of a villain.

NOT the same thing.

Back in the day (or should I say, 10 months ago) Randy Orton didn't take anyone's sh*t.

When Batista wanted to whine like a perplexed caveman about how he was "sick and tired" or Orton bad-mouthing the group that turned on him and beat him down for no reason, Orton punted him in the skull (saving us months of Batistic garbage) and cured the WWE again by tearing up his arm after he returned.

When Triple H found himself caught in the middle of "the destruction of the McMahon family" that came about as a result of the decisions that he made, Randy Orton made him cry in front of 20,000 people.

This was a Randy Orton who became a force to be reckoned with.

When the WWE's so-called bad-a**es would simply "beat you up," Randy Orton would take you out.

Randy Orton would never, and allow me to stress the word NEVER, allow someone like Kofi Kingston to cough on him, let alone make him bleed.

Randy Orton took men who had actually held the title, like CM Punk, and punted them out of relevance before they even had the opportunity to fight back.

He didn't get beat up by people under 6'0".

Okay, I can understand "selling" for people, but there has to be a limit to everything within reason.

As I say, give us the bad in moderation, don't make me throw up by having to drink the whole glass.

Randy Orton doesn't "need" to change because he's still 10 steps ahead of the curve on a bad week with the WWE's script writers writing backwards.

But if Randy Orton wants to become truly "great" again, we need to see that hunger, that hatred in his eyes every time the slightest thing goes wrong for him.

We can't see him getting beat up week after week but more importantly, we can't see his opponents walking around Raw without fear.

Randy Orton's opponents should either be overcome with fear as a result of their common-sense of they should be stricken by injury for their lack of it.

THAT is the Randy Orton we need to see back on television Monday nights.

Disclaimer: For those of you who might have taken this article a little too literally, please understand that the point of view conveyed in the article is representative of my opinion as it pertains to the fictional world of the WWE and is not intended to be reflective of my personal views regarding reality. Thank you.

Vince Young and the Circumstantial Nature of Winning in the NFL

Ryan Michael — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:48:08 -0500

He's a winner, plain and simple.

Have you ever heard someone say that "you can put up all the flashy numbers you want but at the end of the say, it is the W that is most important"?

Well if that is true, feast your eyes upon one of the league's most valuable players.

And if the small sample size we've had to work with is any indication of the future that is to come, feast your eyes upon a future Hall of Famer.

22-11, that's Vince Young's record as a starting quarterback in the NFL.

That's an astounding 0.666 winning percentage.

Higher than a number of active quarterbacks whom you might have heard of, Kurt Warner (0.577), Drew Brees (0.560), and Aaron Rodgers (0.462) just to name a few.

As a matter of fact, it isn't even close.

Do you think that Drew Brees is a good quarterback, one of the very best in the league perhaps?

Well it is Vince Young who wins more often.

Heck, so does Rex Grossman (0.613).

As a matter of fact, Vince Young has a greater winning percentage than most Hall of Fame quarterbacks.

For argument's sake, I'll name a few...

Steve Young (0.657), Johnny Unitas (0.645), John Elway (0.643), and Dan Marino (0.613).

Yes, the sample size we have to work with is MUCH smaller.

Understand that in no way am I trying to argue that Vince Young is better than these Hall of Famers, nor do I seek to imply that people would be foolish enough to agree.

My point rather is regarding the circumstantial nature of winning in the NFL.

As stated before, you've heard the people who have preached "results" over "big numbers" which really means "quarterback who wins more games" over the quarterback who is more productive on the field.

Productive and Vince Young don't fit in the same sentence.

Despite being one of the best scramblers in the game (the versatility that is said to be Young's "X-Factor") he has also been one of the least productive starting quarterbacks in the league.

Not compared to let's say, a Tarvaris Jackson.

But to put Vince Young in the same breath as the Mannings, Brees, and Bradys is an insult.

Not to say that people have jumped on his bandwagon that fast this season but there was a time when this man managed to secure a trip to Hawaii (as an alternate, mind you, but still).

Interceptions are much more a specialty of Vince Young's than touchdowns.

25 touchdowns to 34 interceptions.

Interceptions, low completion percentage and lack of production are all in a days work for Vince Young, but if you're someone the likes of Aaron Rodgers with all of your yards, touchdowns, and less-frequent interceptions, expect to walk off the field a loser far more often than Vince Young.

So if far more productive players are winning less often, why is it that Vince Young is running around with a HOF-caliber winning percentage while others struggle to make their teams relevant?

Could it be that their running game, defense, special teams, and coaching staffs also contribute to their chances of winning?

Could it be that different players of different calibers will achieve different results playing under different circumstances?

If the "W's" are the most telling aspect of a quarterbacks value, The Packers better offer to trade Aaron Rodgers for Vince Young right away.

I'm sure the Titans wouldn't mind.

WWE Selects the Worst Possible Oppenent for John Cena's Title: Sheamus

Ryan Michael — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:51:17 -0500

After the disgust of seeing Randy Orton eliminated from the number one contender's battle royal, I got a little more ill after seeing who the WWE felt to be more worthy.

Wait they didn't even push Kofi Kingston an additional inch towards the industry's greatest prize?

No.

And with as much as I'm disgusted with Kofi Kingston for eliminating Randy Orton, at least he would have put on a good match at Tables, Ladders, and Chairs .

But the WWE had something very special planned for us on Monday night.

They decided that they would rather destroy the next PPV than allow their fans to see the "same old sh*t" all over again with Orton and Cena.

Who did they select as this months next successor?

No, I'd rather not even go there.

As I'm watching the end of Raw's main event, I see what couldn't possibly be right.

Sheamus?

Was I drunk as I watched the end of the battle royal?

Wait a second.

I forgot, I don't drink.

Sheamus? Really?

To quote The Miz, "Reeeaaallly?".

I'm not going to belabor the obvious any longer...Are they out of their minds?

Sheamus? My god!

I can understand wanting to push a young Superstar, I get that but the WWE must have knocked themselves silly with all of this "over-pushing" they've become addicted to over the past month.

First Kofi Kingston (but at least he's exceptionally talented) and now we see Sheamus selected to headline the main event of an actual PPV?

You are meaning to tell me that the WWE thinks that people want to pay $39.95 to see John Cena defeat Sheamus?

Couldn't that have been saved for a weak house-show event?

But no, on to TLC we go with one of the most horribly constructed PPV main events in recent memory.

Now, why do I have an issue with Sheamus being in the main event?

Answer's simple: He doesn't deserve it.

He has certainly not displayed to anyone the ability to be a draw of any kind.

Who the hell is buying tickets to see Sheamus?

Yes, I realize the guy is a heel but at least with guys like Randy Orton and CM Punk, the fans care a little.

But you're putting this unknown into a match with a man whom the people hate?

Are they so desperate to get the fans to cheer for John Cena that they pair him against one of the most unlikable nobody's the WWE has to offer?

Actually, the fans hate Cena so much that they embraced the greatness of Sheamus.

That's right, the pale man featured above with no character has more appeal to the people than the WWE's Superman.

But why would I even want to watch?

To see Superman triumph yet again?

YET AGAIN!

The WWE wouldn't actually be dumb enough to allow Sheamus to win, would they?

Then again, I didn't find it conceivable to see Kofi Kingston beat down Randy Orton so I guess anything is possible.

I don't like where this is going WWE, I don't like it one bit.

Might as well nominate Mike Knox as the number one contender for Undertaker's World title, nobody's going to buy the PPV anyway.

The WWE Dropped the Ball with the Randy Orton/Kofi Kingston Rivalry

Ryan Michael — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:51:22 -0500

This rivalry had all of the potential in the world to succeed beyond measure but instead, it fell flat on its face.

You'll have to forgive me as I have not had the time to track the B/R response to this rivalry, but I'm just going to go ahead and assume that most people would consider it a success.

I wouldn't.

But it's not because of my overwhelming bias for everything that is Randy Orton.

Granted, I do feel that the most talented man in the industry deserves better, but not even I expect him to win all of the time. But allow me to elaborate regarding my view on Kofi Kingston.

He is without question, one of the very best performers the WWE has to offer.

The WWE did the right thing by allowing him to develop his character by dropping the fake accent and giving him the chance to cut quality promos for the first time in his career.

I had never heard Kingston cut promos like he had during his feud with Orton, and I found this new take on his character to be refreshing.

The WWE had to allow him to become his own man if they ever hoped for him to be pushed past the mid-card level and they have succeeded in that respect. The problem is, they pushed him too fast and pushed him against the wrong guy.

Randy Orton is not someone to mess with, plain and simple.

And with all due respect to Kofi Kingston, he had not earned enough stripes when he defeated Randy Orton at Survivor Series.

Randy Orton has taken out the best the WWE has had to offer, period, I don't even need to go through the laundry list of names.

They should not have taken someone who was "on the rise" and have him topple the WWE's most dangerous force.

It would be like having Dolph Ziggler defeating the Undertaker, but yeah...

The WWE had no problem allowing a mid-card face to topple a main-event heel, but they would certainly take issue with a mid-card heel toppling a main-event face.

I'm sure that some of you might disagree with my analogy, but I don't see any greater a differential between Ziggler and the Undertaker than I do between Kingston and Orton.

But if they're going to have Kingston beat Orton, couldn't they have made it a bit more realistic?

Watching a six-feel tall Kofi Kingston physically dominate a man who made Triple H cry is bad enough, but seeing it progress week after week without seeing Kingston being placed in any bit of danger is just bad booking.

The WWE did succeed in getting people to cheer for Kingston more than ever.

It seems as though their willingness to allow Kingston to dominate week after week without any sort of repercussions encouraged the people to embrace him more than ever.

That's good for both Kingston and Orton because it shows that they are playing their roles well. It's just a shame to have seen a rivalry that would appear to be so uneven one way end up so one sided in the other direction.

I'm sure that tphe WWE is happy with their decision, as may be many people.

But that doesn't make the direction the right one, or the realistic one for that matter.

Tom Brady Receives Little Blame for Loss to the Colts: Big Surprise!

Ryan Michael — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:57:10 -0500

Almost a week removed from one of the greatest regular season games played in recent memory, my attention has turned to the media's treatment of Tom Brady after his Patriots fell short to the Indianapolis Colts, 35-34.

Now, if you're sitting back and thinking to yourself that Tom Brady has little to be blamed for, you might very well be right.

But that's not the point.

I am not trying to argue that Tom Brady had a poor performance in his loss to Indianapolis; I'm simply going to illustrate the treatment Brady receives in comparison to the quarterback who did win Sunday's show-down.

No, Peyton Manning wasn't criticized much for helping to complete an eventual 17-point comeback to win the game.

Everything's better when you win.

But I couldn't help but focus my attention upon Patriots' head coach, Bill Belichick.

Now when it comes to Bill Belichick, we are talking about a man whom I have very little respect for.

I have plenty of respect for his ability to coach his football team—to that end, he might very well be one of the greatest to ever do so.

My issue with Belichick is the ways in which he tends to carry himself, the ways that he treats opposing coaches and players when he leaves the field after a loss, and, of course, his willingness to break the rules to gain a competitive advantage.

Yet while I could write a book about the "evils of Bill Belichick," I couldn't help but feel as though he was treated unfairly by the media after his decision to go for it on fourth down resulted in a turnover that led to a Colts game-winning touchdown.

Kind of hard to feel bad for a guy who once decided to go for it on fourth down while being ahead by more than 40 points against the Washington Redskins back in 2007, but in this case, it wasn't greed that proved to be Belichick's undoing.

When the Patriots failed to convert on fourth down, his choices were to either put the football in the hands of Peyton Manning or Tom Brady.

The choice was obvious, for Belichick at least.

He trusted his Hall of Fame quarterback to be able to gain at least two yards, not a tall order if we're talking about "Mr. Clutch" anyway.

Yet Brady's offense failed to pick up the necessary yardage.

The rest is history, Peyton Manning connected with Reggie Wayne for a game-winning touchdown which left only 13 seconds left on the clock.

Not even Tom Brady could come through that fast.

After the game was over, everyone in the media (besides a few loyal Patriots fans who rightfully defended their coach) began to fire shot after shot at Bill Belichick.

But let's break this down, shall we?

Yes, he did risk giving away fatal field position to Peyton Manning which we all knew would likely result in a touchdown, I get that.

People say that Belichick didn't trust his defense or that he showed them some lack of respect by deciding to keep his offense on the field.

Reality check: We're not talking about the 2003 Patriots defense any more.

So what would be more likely, a solid (yet injured) Patriots defense stopping Peyton Manning from going about 70-yards down the field or "Mr. Clutch" Tom Brady picking up two yards?

If you can't trust Tom Brady to pick up two yards when he's throwing to Randy Moss and Wes Welker being covered by two rookies, then I think you have bigger issues than a lack of respect for your defense.

Belichick's decision was logical, it just so happened that the Colts' defense stepped up and made a great play.

It happens.

Bill Belichick is not "stupid" for thinking that Tom Brady could pick up two yards.

But we'll never see anyone throw any blame upon Tom Brady's shoulders, will we?

Tom went 29 of 42 for 375 yards, throwing three touchdowns and one interception but when it came down to it, he came up a yard short.

Does this make Tom Brady a choker?

Think about it, all he has to do is pick up two yards and the Patriots would have likely won the game and been well on their way to securing home field advantage throughout the playoffs.

Yet two yards ended up being a bit too much.

Tom Brady a choker? Of course not!

He played an excellent game, but he just so happened to come up a bit short of what his team needed to win.

The concept of your quarterback playing a good game of football only to lose anyway is a concept which his rival could certainly relate to.

I assure you that if the positions were reversed and it was Peyton Manning's offense who failed to get two yards to win the game while Tom Brady threw a game-winning touchdown pass, we would here about why Peyton Manning is the choker and why Tom Brady is Mr. Clutch.

The bottom line here is that neither Bill Belichick should be blamed for this loss.

True, if they made just one more play they would have won but nobody can be perfect in today's NFL.

I simply wanted to point out yet again, the clear double-standard that exists between the treatment of Peyton Manning and Tom Brady.

Peyton Manning's Colts Edge Past Tom Brady's Patriots in Historic Fashion, 35-34

Ryan Michael — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:08:48 -0500

It was one of the most satisfying victories I've experienced as a fan.

Not since the Colts' 18-point comeback in the 2006 AFC Championship game have I experienced the kind of excitement that Sunday's Colts vs. Patriots game delivered.

Much like had been the case back during that 2006 AFC Championship game, the Patriots jumped out to a substantial lead early in the game.

Logic had to tell you as a fan, the game is over. But the magic of Peyton Manning and that Indianapolis Colts' offense is rarely logical.

How can you come back from a 17-point deficit while Tom Brady is shredding Indianapolis' first ranked defense? How can you win when injuries become contagious for all three of your running-backs? How can you win when, despite all of this, you still effectively have no running game?

And how can you win when the ball is in Tom Brady's hands with under three minutes left on the clock?

Sometimes Colts fans, miracles just happen.

We needed a few breaks, a couple of first downs, an inspired defense, a little Peyton Manning, and a whole lot of luck.

Thankfully, we were blessed with all of the above.

Standing calmly in the eye of the storm, Peyton Manning fired the game winning touchdown pass to Reggie Wayne with only 16-seconds remaining on the clock.

And so marked the 40th time that Peyton Manning has led the Colts to a fourth quarter comeback or a game winning drive (the most by any quarterback since he became active).

It should come as little surprise, but he didn't do it alone.

The Colts defense attacked Tom Brady and created just enough pressure to give the Colts offense one last opportunity to come through at the end.

It wasn't the cleanest victory by any means, but it was a win.

Now the Colts stand right at the top of the NFL with a 9-0 record and a two-game advantage over the second place Cincinnati Bengals (7-2) who deserve an immense amount of credit for defeating the Pittsburgh Steelers earlier Sunday afternoon.

This also brings the Colts regular season winning streak to 18 consecutive games, tying the Patriots for the second longest streak in NFL history (the Patriots also own the number one spot with 21 consecutive victories).

Also worthy of note is the fact that Peyton Manning eclipsed the 350-touchdown pass mark with his first touchdown pass to Reggie Wayne. After tonight's game, he brought his career total to an astounding 353.

He also became the first quarterback in NFL history to throw over 300 touchdown passes in a single decade (he became the first quarterback to throw for over 40,000 yards in a single decade last week).

Colts' head coach Jim Caldwell also became the first head coach to start his career by winning his first nine games.

It certainly was a historic night for the Indianapolis Colts.

But walking away from watching this game hasn't left me without respect for the enemy.

I hate the Patriots. As a matter of fact, I despise them.

But they played one hell of a football game.

Tom Brady was very sharp, and Randy Moss...what can I say? Randy Moss is a beast who should be kicked out of every game after he eclipses 150 years, he's simply to dangerous for words to describe.

As for Bill Belichick, whom I consider to be the worst of the bunch, he is about to take a huge load of criticism for deciding to have his offense go for it on fourth and two.

Before the decision was made, I told myself that I would much rather New England punt the ball because I felt as though they would make the conversion if they decided to go for it.

If they did convert, everyone would have praised Belichick for making such a cut-throat decision that might have very well won his team the game.

He decided that he'd rather put the ball in Tom Brady's hands than Peyton Manning's.

In most cases it would have worked but sometimes the other team manages to make one more play than you did.

I could write an entire book about things to criticize Belichick for but this Sunday's fourth down decision isn't one of them, pick on something else.

And as for Tom Brady, I have to give him credit for going and speaking with Manning after the game because I know Manning would have done the same had the situation been reversed.

Even though Brady looked about as disappointed as I've ever seen him, he decided to show sportsmanship instead of running off the field —kudos to you Mr. Brady.

Now, as I spit out a bit of the vomit that came up after my small amount of Brady-praise, I'll simply conclude this article by giving credit to both teams for playing yet another outstanding game.

I hope we have the chance to meet up with them again in the postseason.

Peyton Manning vs. Tom Brady: Why Colts Fans Can't Stand the Patriots

Ryan Michael — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:31:29 -0500

On the eve of what might very well be the game of the year, the debates continue to sizzle in regards to the classic "Manning vs. Brady" situation.

And just when you might feel as though you've read 10 too many articles of this nature, I figured this would be the perfect time to shed some light on an old debate from a different perspective.

It is no secret that fans of each respective team don't have much love for one another.

Some of us respect each other (I can think of a number of brilliant Patriots fans on this website alone) and I'm sure there are also plenty of us who can’t stand each other.

But before I get into the specifics, I'm going to break down the comparison between Manning and Brady as it pertains to this 2009 season thus far.

Peyton Manning:

221 of 313 (70.6 percent) for 2,545 yards (8.1 YPA), 16 touchdowns and five interceptions. 105.2 quarterback rating.

Tom Brady:

204 of 310 (65.8 percent) for 2,364 yards (7.6 YPA), 16 touchdowns and five interceptions. 99.2 quarterback rating.

Without question, both players have played at a very high level this season.

Manning should be credited for playing so well while having to throw to a number of back-up receivers and Brady should be credited for playing so well coming off of a devastating knee injury.

I could split hairs as to which set of circumstances might be more difficult to play under, which might seem unfair, but I'm going to anyway in the interest of fairness no less.

People LOVE to make things seem as trade-offs.

For instance, we often hear Manning is the "big numbers guy" while Brady is the "winner" so they are both so close that it is impossible to choose between the two.

While this is certainly not the perspective of everyone, I hear it enough that it certainly warrants mention if nothing else. But for now, I'm going to focus my attention of the various sets of circumstances that both Manning and Brady have faced this season.

Peyton Manning has played with back-up receivers in light of Anthony Gonzalez's week one injury. Yet still, Manning has managed to be THE most productive quarterback in the entire league.

He has been backed by one of the worst rushing offenses that pro football has to offer and despite this, he has thrown only five interceptions when every defense walking earth knows that his only chance to advance on the football field is through the air.

Brady hasn't exactly been backed by a HOF-caliber rushing attack, but his team has managed to out-rush the Colts offense 914-yards (4.1 YPC) to 683-yards (3.7 YPC).

I'd mention also the fact that Manning is playing with a rookie head coach compared to Brady who is playing with Bill Belichick (whom he has spent his entire career with) but that seems to be pretty self explanatory.

What I find to be disturbing is to watch TV and hear those points mentioned in passing as though they have little impact upon each quarterback's playing situation.

To be fair though, we have to look at Brady's post-surgical situation.

He has managed to play at a very high level despite having missed almost a full year of football while recovering from a serious knee injury.

This is impressive, no doubt.

But to me, not nearly as impressive as what Carson Palmer did in 2006.

He had all three ligaments in his knee torn up with a dislocated kneecap to boot, only he had half of the recovery time to work with.

Palmer did manage to come back, and he came back playing at a Pro Bowl level.

Only Palmer didn't receive half of the attention Brady did because no matter how well he played, you sprinkle in a little bit of that 17th-ranked Bengals defense and you end up 8-8 instead of 12-4.

But I suppose that everyone is going to have their own views as to who has been playing under more difficult circumstances this season, so to each his own.

Now I'd like to get into why fans of both the Colts and Patriots tend to dislike one another (expanding upon the obvious fact that they support rival teams).

I'm going to explain why I feel that Patriots fans don't like Manning and the Colts, but I expect most of them to disagree with my assumption.

When it comes to fans of successful teams, it is in their nature to take pride in the accolades they have achieved as well as the championships they have won.

The next logical step is to assume or feel as though their team is the absolute best that the NFL has to offer. After all, they would have to be given the fact that they won the Super Bowl.

Funny how this concept goes right out the door when talking about the 2007 season.

The New York Giants were NOT the best team that year, neither were the Colts for that matter.

The New England Patriots were by far the best team during the 2007 season and my opinion in that regard would not have changed if they won Super Bowl XLII.

They were the best regardless due to how well they played for the great majority of the entire season.

But back to where I was going with this.

If you are a fan who believes that your team is the "creme de la creme" of the NFL, it is only natural to feel as though your quarterback is also the league's finest.

Since the quarterback is the most important position in pro football, it would only be logical to assume that the league's best quarterback would just so happen to play right along side the league's best team.

For many fans, simply winning the Super Bowl is not good enough.

If the league's best quarterback isn't winning as many championships as the guy next to him, how could he possibly be as good?

It's a shame that so many people think this way.

The logical answer being team support.

The support of your entire team, offense, defense, special teams, coaching staff, etc. is all going to impact your quarterback's chances of winning.

You often hear that since Manning has better receiving targets to throw to, that Manning and Brady's chances of winning championships seem to be something of a trade-off.

Never mind the fact that the Patriots as an entire team (I'm not talking about a lone stud running back) have run for more yards, more YPC, and more touchdowns while Brady has been their quarterback compared to a Colts rushing attack (usually featuring a lone stud running back) who have ran for fewer yards, fewer YPC, and fewer touchdowns.

Then you take the defensive side of the ball (which last time I checked comprised about 50-percent of your chances of winning) which has been so much greater in the Patriots favor, it's not even really worthy of debate.

People remember the few good Colts defensive squads (or should I say, few awesome players) and throw out the seven years of very poor defensive support, in the same way that they remember the three years (2004-06) Manning has multiple productive receiving targets (Harrison & Wayne) and ignore the fact that he's been throwing to one lone 1,000-yard plus receiver for eight of his 11 seasons.

This is the kind of generally adopted perspective that upsets Colts fans.

People often turn a blind eye to the reality of a player's given support in favor of something that simply sounds right.

I cannot tell you how many times I've heard someone say that Peyton Manning has played with a defense that has boasted Dwight Freeney and Bob Sanders, therefore Colts fans have no reason to complain.

We have improved a lot this season but all one has to do is go back and watch games from years prior to understand exactly what I'm talking about.

Then go back and watch some of the Belichick-coached Patriots defenses of the past decade to determine just how much impact both defensive squads have on the game's eventual outcome.

But back to the quarterback position.

You often hear, Peyton Manning is the "big numbers guy."

If you have ever heard someone say this, you should take immediate notice of the insult masked within the statement.

"Big numbers guy" to me implies something negative.

That is why I use the term "production" because that's what it really is. "Big numbers" is simply a simplistic way to state an aspect of much greater importance than the speaker chooses to give it.

Production accounts for how often you move your team up and down the field and how many points you put on the board.

If a quarterback like Tom Brady can move his team up and down the field less while putting fewer points on the board and still end up winning more often then the guy who moves his team up and down the field more while putting more points on the board, what does this tell you?

Think about the past paragraph for a moment, and think seriously about it.

Fans try to credit less productive players with attributes that cannot be quantified.

Why, you might ask?

Because logically, if one player is less productive than the other, you have to create reasons for which you feel him to be better than the guy who is doing more on the football field.

You can glorify "clutch" plays all you want but the reality is that a touchdown counts as six points be it in the first quarter or the fourth.

That is not to take away the value there is in coming through when you need to win the game, it’s just the degree in which people value those moments, even if the quarterback failed to produce during the rest of the game (look at Brady’s performance in Super Bowl XXXVI for a perfect example).

Think about this…

You have two quarterbacks. Both throw for three touchdowns and one interception.

One quarterback throws his lone interception in the first quarter but closes the game throwing three touchdown passes, the final one being the eventual "game-winner."

We call this quarterback clutch.

The other quarterback throws his three touchdown passes earlier in the game but finishes the game with an interception that ended his team's chances of victory.

We often call this quarterback a choker.

Why?

Both quarterbacks put an equal amount of points on the board.

The difference between each team's eventual outcomes lies in the performance of other aspects of the game. The running game, the defense, and special teams.

Yet we as people tend to glorify one side and criticize the other simply because that is how the reality "seems" to most people.

To many people, it just has to sound right. It doesn't have to be right.

It's not that people are looking to intentionally deceive themselves; they simply know only what has become natural over a lifetime's worth of fan-hood.

But back to the Manning vs. Brady situation.

If Tom Brady could win more while producing less, to make it seem as though the quality of support was somewhat equal is simply ridiculous.

If Peyton Manning were to suddenly throw for fewer yards and fewer touchdowns during all of these years, the Colts would have simply lost more games.

Colts fans dislike the Patriots not out of jealousy (we’ve won five out of the last six games), but because of the absurd double-standard that exists in regards to the two teams, especially in regards to the quarterbacks.

Flash back to 2007 for a moment.

Manning goes 33 of 48 for 402 yards, three touchdowns and two interceptions (97.7 rating) in a losing effort to the San Diego Chargers. As a result, people say that he "choked" in a big playoff game.

The next week, Tom Brady goes 22 of 33 for 209 yards, two touchdowns and three interceptions (66.3 rating) in a winning effort for which few people criticize Brady's performance.

Yet Manning is the choke-artist while Brady is the same clutch quarterback that he had always been known for?

Heck, Manning's team couldn't beat a Chargers team without Philip Rivers while the Patriots faced and defeated the starting quarterback.

If Manning is moving his team up and down the field more, putting more points on the board and turning the ball over less frequently, why is it that he loses when a quarterback who moves his team up and down the field less, puts fewer points on the board and turns the ball over more frequently wins?

Again, the logical answer being team support.

Yet instances like this either in individual cases or in regards to the years that both quarterbacks have played have tended to go generally ignored in the favor of blind generalizations.

It's easier that way.

Colts fans don't like how the Patriots could steal signals for seven seasons only to be slapped on the wrist.

Their head coach can be crucified by the media while their quarterback (who obviously benefited by knowledge acquired through illegal means) is not even questioned by the media at all.

When was the last time anyone heard of Tom Brady having to answer for six seasons of stealing signals?

It's not so much that it was Tom Brady's fault as it is the fact that his legacy appears to be un-effected by the magnitude of what Spygate was.

And for every fan who has given the general "Well, every team does it" excuse, allow me to be logical for a moment.

Every reporter on the planet (even Bleacher Reporters) would love to break the next big Spygate scandal.

Especially for Patriots fans, proof of any other team doing the same would only help to better their legacy as they would no longer be the lone violators.

And it wouldn't be hard to prove if "any" other team did it, much less “every” other team.

NFL Films records every game played every Sunday. If any other team besides New England had a camera-man pointed where he shouldn't be, it would show up on film time after time.

Yet, two years after the Spygate story broke; even those who have been searching have failed to find evidence to support the irrational claim that "every team does it".

So again, I'm not blaming Tom Brady for what his coaching staff did, I just feel that it is clearly relevant in regards to the context of his career.

The Patriots run if nothing else, a brilliant organization. To think that they would hire anyone to do anything that would be of "zero value" is absurd, much less hire someone to break a rule which is pretty difficult to mis-interpret (and would have been very easy to find out if one cared to check).

But I don't want to end all of this on such a negative note.

This Sunday's match-up looks to be promising.

Colts/Patriots games are usually filled to the brim with excitement, and this year looks to be no different.

Both Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are playing at an elite level and it is rare that we get the opportunity to see two fine quarterbacks of this caliber face off.

For what it is worth, Tom Brady appears to be getting better year after year. He is in my opinion, a far greater quarterback today than he was back when he was winning championships.

Which just goes to show that there is much more to winning championships than just your quarterback.

Even if their names are Peyton Manning and Tom Brady.

WWE's Ascension Culminates with the Birth of a Great New Champion, Randy Orton

Ryan Michael — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 00:13:54 -0400

On Sunday, Oct. 4 2009, history was made.

For on this very night, we witnessed the rebirth of a living legend.

And while the night also saw the Undertaker rise to the top of the WWE's secondary brand, his victory will undoubtedly take a back seat to the events that unraveled later in the evening.

The match was one of familiar flavor, albeit, dressed with steel and coated in destiny.

Why destiny, you might ask.

Because on some nights, not even the unspoken guidelines of WWE tradition could prevent destiny from reaching its end.

For in Hell in a Cell, it was John Cena's match to win and Randy Orton's to lose.

For in Hell in a Cell, the winner would have to be the superior competitor.

Yet while the inevitable outcome was all but certain to unravel, the WWE decided to step away from their conventional protocol in order to enable something truly special to happen.

Locked inside of a steel cell and forced to compete until one man was left unable to stand, it was Randy Orton who stood victorious while the WWE's "Superman" was reduced to little more than another of Randy Orton's victims.

John Cena was left broken and beaten in the middle of the ring as the WWE's Lex Luthor walked out of the cell as the new WWE Champion.

But wait, the bad guy never wins, right?

The fairy tale that has been John Cena's career came to an abrupt halt as the better man left as champion and the inferior competitor was left with nothing but a kick to the skull for his efforts.

Dramatic irony or poetic justice?

I assure you, nobody deserved to lose more tonight than John Cena and the WWE universe should indulge in the satisfaction of his misery.

For all of the years Cena was able to coast by, affixed to the WWE Championship with no real threat or any means to detach him from that which he did not deserve, he now has to face the reality that is Randy Orton.

For all of his talk about being a "soldier" with a "never say quit attitude," the stupidity he exhibited at Breaking Point might have very well cost him the title he so cherished.

As Randy Orton said, he did say "I quit" to preserve his longevity while it was John Cena's stupidity that enabled him to sustain unnecessary abuse.

Did the beating that Randy Orton delivered at Breaking Point play any factor in Cena's demise at Hell In a Cell?

Either Cena's stupidity cost him his physical vigor or he simply lost because he was overwhelmed with the level of competition he faced.

Either way you look at it, John Cena has himself to blame for losing the WWE championship and Randy Orton has himself to credit for his historic victory.

Why historic, you might ask.

Because Orton's victory at Hell In a Cell marks the first time a heel has earned a clean pin-fall victory during a pay-per-view championship match since he himself did it at Wrestlemania XXIV, when he pinned John Cena in a Triple Threat match for the WWE Championship (might I add, making Orton one of only two heels in WWE history to win the main event of a Wrestlemania and the only one to do so without having marital relations with the owner's daughter).

That's 19 months, 22 pay-per-views, and 37 (WWE or World) championship matches that could have been won by pin-fall, yet Randy Orton becomes the first heel since himself nearly two years ago to win a major championship match by pin-fall in clean fashion at a pay-per-view.

There were no sneak attacks, no double-teams, nothing but the better man gaining a pin-fall by out-performing his opponent.

That, ladies and gentleman, is history.

For the sixth time in his illustrious Hall of Fame career, Randy Orton has become the WWE/World Champion.

Without question, nobody deserves to indulge in the satisfaction of this victory more than Randy Orton.

Understand of course that when I predicted John Cena's inevitable victory at Hell In a Cell, I expected nothing more than the WWE staying true to their convictions, yet all the while hoping for them to prove me wrong.

Was it arrogant of me to feel as though my voice had any impact on tonight's pay-per-view?

Perhaps.

But if my voice had even the slightest chance of being heard, it was well worth my effort to voice it.

As a proud and true Ortonite, our WWE Champion deserves nothing less.

So I must say: WWE, you did us proud tonight.

If this has been any sign of things to come, I would be happy to fork over $39.95 every month to be entertained by what can be a more realistic and ever-evolving product.

As it stands right now, we are all living in the "Age of Orton".

Thank you, Vince McMahon, for allowing us the pleasure.

Same Story, Different Week: Peyton Manning Leads His Colts Past the Seahawks

Ryan Michael — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:24:51 -0400

Can anyone stop this guy?

Another week goes by and another victory has been secured for the undefeated Indianapolis Colts, riding the arm of Peyton Manning to get there.

The Seahawks had little chance to win to begin with, but Peyton Manning and the high-powered Colts' passing offense poured the points on anyway.

Manning was 31 of 41 for 353 yards, two touchdowns, and an interception.

Which means he continues his productive pace and his assault on the NFL record book.

On Sunday, Manning tied Fran Tarkenton by throwing touchdown pass No. 342 which places him at third on the all-time list.

After next Sunday, he will secure the third spot and trail only Brett Favre and Dan Marino.

But let's talk about this Sunday.

Despite being backed by a running game that produced only 79 yards, Manning tore up the Seahawks defense for 353 yards.

That's four games this season and four consecutive 300-yard performances.

Manning is currently on pace to throw for 5,344 yards this season and no, that isn't a typo.

Neither is the fact that Manning has completed an astounding 70.8 percent of his passes (97 of 137) this season, completing 75.5 percent Sunday against the Seahawks.

But it's not just about how well Manning is performing, it's about how well he is performing with the players at his disposal.

Many thought that with the departure of future Hall of Fame receiver Marvin Harrison, Manning's productivity would be on the decline.

Yet while those same people appeared to be ignorant to the fact that Manning had actually been more productive when Harrison was injured in 2007 than when he was healthy, the reality of past history has continued in 2009.

If Manning can be this productive playing with back-up receivers, we can only imagine the damage that will be done when Anthony Gonzalez returns.

Manning has averaged 334 yards per game so far in 2009. What would he average, over 350 yards per game with Gonzalez back in the lineup?

And lets be fair, saying that the inclusion of Anthony Gonzalez would only account for a 16 yard per-game difference is being very generous.

But as it stands right now, the Colts have a 4-0 record and will look to continue their 13 regular season game winning-streak next week when they face the Tennessee Titans on Sunday Night football.

The same Titans team who gave up 37 points to the Jacksonville Jaguars.

Have you seen what Peyton Manning has done the last two times he played on prime-time television?

God help the Tennessee Titans.

John Cena Set to Defeat Randy Orton at Hell In a Cell to Retain His WWE Title

Ryan Michael — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:28:15 -0400

With the WWE's pay-per-view titled Hell In a Cell coming up this Sunday, the results of the event's WWE Championship match are already in and that's good news if your a fan of John Cena.

Yet again, John Cena will find a way to leave a WWE pay-per-view as the WWE Champion but perhaps more importantly, he will manage to kill Randy Orton's momentum in the process.

The WWE once had big things in store for Randy Orton and at one point, they appeared willing to allow their most talented Superstar to develop into the greatest heel of our generation.

But heels are yesterday's news in the eyes of the WWE.

After all, they don't bring in a fraction of the merchandise revenue which is an essential part of being a WWE Superstar, Vince McMahon would tell you that.

As Triple H said many years ago in his DVD Triple H: The Game, the WWE has always been about who is the top face in the company and to become one of the "top guys", you had to become the top face.

John Cena has done exactly that and has reaped the benefits of doing so.

But while they could go the logical route and maintain a balance to create a more structured competitive system, the WWE made their decision long ago to adopt a direction that I'd like to refer to as "Babyface Favoritism".

So long as the WWE continues to push hard in this direction, the fans should not expect a balanced product which is what makes it so easy to predict the outcomes of their major events.

It is hurting their pay-per-view buy-rates but they don't appear to care to much.

I had little trouble determining who was going to win the WWE Championship match at Breaking Point and despite the fact that over 11,000 people read my article prior to the event, the WWE decided to deliver the exact finish the people knew were coming.

The same will be the case at Hell In a Cell.

This event will not be about seeing a competitive contest or a match in which the best man will win because we know that for better or worse, John Cena will walk out as the WWE Champion regardless.

The WWE "might" and I stress the word might, try to find a way to make Randy Orton look credible in the process of his defeat but it will mean little considering the fact that he will be competing in a match in which he has no chance of winning.

"Hell In a Cell" and "I Quit" matches are made for guys like John Cena to win which is what made Randy Orton's remarks regarding how he "knows how to win" all the more comical seeing as this isn't the first time the WWE has set him up to lose in a Cell.

The so-called experience Randy Orton gathered that has taught him what he needs to do to win this match came from a losing effort to the Undertaker in 2005.

I got news for you Randy Orton; if you really want to know how to win a Hell In a Cell match, become a babyface.

It will work for John Cena this Sunday and it can work for you in the future if you ever decide to throw away the great character you have created in the favor of selling a few more Age of Orton T-shirts.

As has been displayed in countless other instances, heels like Randy Orton have absolutely no chances of defeating guys like John Cena through pure might or by being the superior competitor.

The WWE audience wouldn't know how to handle something like that so the WWE strives to develop ways for guys like Orton to win matches in the sneakiest of fashions.

The problem being, there is no way for them to sneak their way out of Hell In a Cell.

This Sunday when it comes down to two of the WWE's top two Superstars, you can rest easy knowing that the only one who will walk out with the WWE Championship will be the one who will win with pure might.

Needless to say, that man won't be Randy Orton.

Peyton Manning Continues to Separate Himself From Brady & Roethlisberger

Ryan Michael — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:14:02 -0400

Three weeks into the 2009 NFL season, certain teams and players have begun to separate themselves from each another. Needless to say, the 2009 season has not gone as many of the so-called "experts" had predicted.

After the Pittsburgh Steelers' victory in Super Bowl XLIII the popular opinion was that Tom Brady and Ben Roethlisberger had secured the top two spots at their position, with the league MVP Peyton Manning descending to the third spot or lower.

Never mind the fact that Roethlisberger was coming off a relatively poor season (despite the success of his team as a whole and a solid Super Bowl finish) and that Brady hadn't played a full game in over a year and a half, it was those two who many had anointed to be the league's finest.

How quickly things change.

Not so much in regards to the reality but in regards to the general perception of it.

Both Brady and Roethlisberger have rarely been known for being some of the more productive players in the National Football League but the respective teams they have played for have managed to attain great success in spite of that.

Of course, that is not to say that they haven't been both productive and efficient (they have been in both respects) but there is a substantial difference between being efficiently productive players paired with Super Bowl caliber defenses and being the most productive player in the 90-year history of the sport.

Enter Peyton Manning.

It should come as little surprise that Peyton has played at such a phenomenal level, after all, he has been not only the most productive player in league history but also the most consistent.

Simply put, this guy just doesn't have "off years."

An off year for Manning is coming off two knee surgeries and a mediocre start to the 2008 season and finishing in historic fashion (setting the NFL record for highest completion percentage by any quarterback in any month in NFL history) to win an NFL-record third MVP award.

Last year's Manning was no joke but in comparison to this year's Manning, we might really have something to laugh about.

Peyton Manning (After Week Three of 2008)

71 of 120 (59.2) for 784 yards, three touchdowns and four interceptions.

Quarterback rating: 73.1

Peyton Manning (After Week Three of 2009)

66 of 96 (68.8) for 983 yards, seven touchdowns and two interceptions.

Quarterback rating: 117.7

The differential is staggering.

So far this season with 24 fewer passing attempts, Manning has thrown for almost 200 more yards, more than doubled his touchdown totals and cut his interception rate in half.

The result is a quarterback rating 44.6 points higher!

And for as great as Manning has been so far in 2009, his competition has been...

Ben Roethlisberger (After Week Three of 2009)

78 of 109 (71.6) for 860 yards, three touchdowns and four interceptions.

Quarterback Rating: 88.5

Tom Brady (After Week Three of 2009)

87 of 142 (61.7) for 871 yards, three touchdowns and two interceptions.

Quarterback Rating: 79.9

It is not so much that Brady and Roethlisberger have played horrible, it is simply that they are contributing significantly less to their team's chances of winning than Manning.

What I see as being an issue for Brady and Roethlisberger in 2009 is the same issue they have had for the majority of their careers and that is failure to put points on the board.

The difference this year is that unlike years past, their running games and defenses have not picked up the same slack, thus their team has yielded different results.

Due to the heroic nature of both Brady and Roethlisberger's comeback victories (which actually happen in lower frequency in comparison to Manning) and team accomplishments, the contributions of their running games and defensive units are often overshadowed.

How could you say that they haven't been?

The Patriots and Steelers have traditionally ranked far higher in rushing offense than passing offense as their defenses have often ranked higher than their offenses.

Yet when you think of the Patriots and Steelers, you think of their quarterbacks opposed to other members of their teams who ranked much higher in comparison to the rest of the league at their respective positions than Brady and Roethlisberger have in comparison to other quarterbacks.

Speaking of comparisons, this is the reality of 2009 thus far...

If we are comparing Manning to Roethlisberger, it is a simple matter of Manning moving his team up the field more, scoring more than twice as many touchdowns and giving the ball to the other team half as frequently.

If we are comparing Manning to Brady, we are seeing Manning move his team up and down the field more, put twice as many points on the board and doing so with 46 fewer passing attempts.

Manning's quarterback rating is 37.8 points higher than Brady which accounts for a greater degree of difference than Brady is from Jake Delhomme (79.9 to 45.3).

Essentially, Brady has passed the ball the equivalent of almost two entire games more than Manning and contributed substantially less in the process.

Heck, Manning equaled Brady's season touchdown total in the second quarter of last night's game alone.

But the greater issue at hand is that none of this should come as much of a surprise to anyone.

Sure Brady and Roethlisberger are struggling more than people might have expected but Manning is continuing to do what he has done for the majority of his career.

After the Patriots and Steelers losses in Week Two, I saw analysts on ESPN debating about whether Manning or Drew Brees is the best quarterback in football.

While that might be the accurate discussion to be had, it wasn't accurate simply because Manning and Brees played great while Brady and Roethlisberger didn't play well that week.

It just illustrates the same thing I said for Brady in 2007 and Roethlisberger at the end of 2008. People will always live in the moment and ignore productive history in the favor of current heroics.

That is why many people are surprised to see Brady and Roethlisberger perform at a mediocre level while some of their contemporaries continue to produce at an exceptional rate.

But remember, I have never been a believer of getting caught up in the moment and allowing that to formulate my overall conclusions.

Brady and Roethlisberger could go on to have great weeks next week while Manning and Brees could play poorly and that would not change my opinion. In the same way that Manning and Brees are not better because they have played at a much higher through three weeks.

It is the track record that is their careers and if you'd like, their careers as of late.

If history is the gage, Manning is the best quarterback in the NFL but if you get caught up in the here and now, Manning has delivered for you too.

Taking Tom Brady or Ben Roethlisberger over Peyton Manning?

As a great man once said, child please!

Peyton Manning's Historic Game Leads Colts Past Dolphins on Monday Night

Ryan Michael — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:35:52 -0400

If only Peyton Manning would have known what he was to face before the Colts squared off against the Dolphins on Monday night.

Let’s say for instance that a voice came to Peyton and revealed what was to come prior to him taking the field.

If the voice were to tell Peyton all of the circumstances he would face, do you think that anyone (Peyton included) would have thought his Colts would have come away with the victory?

The voices tell him...

*You are only going to have possession of the ball for 14 minutes and 53 seconds of the ball game which will limit you to only 23 passing attempts.

*You are going to have to play without your starting receiver Anthony Gonzalez as he will be replaced by two receivers who have a combined nine career receptions, just be aware that both of them will only catch a combined two passes during this upcoming game.

*As far as your running game, they will support you with a grand total of 58 rushing yards as your defense will give up a total of 239 yards on the ground.

*The Dolphins will shut down the man who was the league's leading receiver (Reggie Wayne) by limiting him to only three catches for 37 yards and no touchdowns.

*You will be limited to only 13 offensive plays in the second half.

*You will have to post a perfect quarterback rating (158.3) in the fourth quarter to have any chance of winning.

That to me, would seem almost impossible.

Almost impossible unless of course, you're Peyton Manning.

Despite having possession of the ball for less than one quarter of the entire game, Manning managed to eclipse the 300-yard mark with only 23 passing attempts.

He averaged a staggering 13.2 yards per attempt.

That's yards per attempt; he averaged 21.6 yards per completion.

Manning got off to a quick start by hooking up with Dallas Clark for an 80-yard touchdown on the very first play of the game.

In doing so, he set a record by throwing for the quickest score to open a game in the 40-year history of Monday Night Football.

That's over 650 games and never has a quarterback put points on the board as fast as Manning did Monday night.

Dallas Clark himself should have received the game ball after catching seven passes for (a career high) 183 yards and a touchdown.

If there was ever a way for the Colts to compensate for the loss of Anthony Gonzalez, Dallas Clark proved that it was possible.

The Colts became the first team since 1977 to win a game after only having possession of the ball for under 15 minutes.

1977, back when Michael Jackson was a teenager, Gerald Ford was the President of the United States, and Ric Flair was a young man.

Yet over all of these years, no team has been able to do what the Colts did Monday night.

As for Manning, he's off to another unbelievable start this season.

42 of 61 (68.9 percent) for 604 yards, three touchdowns and one interception.

Quarterback Rating: 110.3

He's the second highest rated quarterback in the league (Drew Brees being a deserved first) and has been able to do so with exceptionally little support coming from his running game.

That makes Manning's achievements all the more impressive as teams know that the Colts' chances ride on his shoulders, and they still haven't been able to stop him.

On Monday night, Peyton Manning surpassed Johnny Unitas to become the Colts’ most winning quarterback in the franchise's 56-year history.

In the process of acquiring this record-breaking victory, Manning led the Colts to a fourth quarter/overtime comeback victory for the 37th time in his career (the most by any quarterback since Manning became active).

If this Monday night proves anything, it's that sometimes dreams really do come true.

But that really should come as little surprise; After all, this is Peyton Manning we’re talking about.

Jay Cutler Out-Performs Ben Roethlisberger as Bears Defeat the Steelers

Ryan Michael — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:33:06 -0400

Chicago made a horrible decision to trade for disgruntled quarterback Jay Cutler.

At least, that's what many people were saying after the Bears 21-15 loss to the Packers during last week's Sunday Night Football match-up.

Cutler was 17 of 36 for 277 yards, 1 touchdown, and 4 interceptions.

That's not exactly the performance you would expect out of a guy you traded so much for.

It was almost a foregone conclusion that the defending Super Bowl champion Pittsburgh Steelers would wipe the field with the Chicago Bears, right?

If Jay Cutler performed so poorly against the same Packers defense that couldn't stop the Bengals this week, how on earth could Cutler expect to play well against the vaunted Steelers defense?

He did.

27 of 38 for 236 yards, 2 touchdowns, and zero interceptions.

And Ben Roethlisberger?

23 of 35 for 221 yards, 1 touchdown, and 1 interceptions.

Unfortunately for Ben, his performance, which was quite similar to that of last week, was not enough to get the victory this week.

As far as Mr. Cutler, he improved by leaps and bounds.

The same quarterback who posted a 43.2 quarterback rating against the Packers' defense managed to post a 104.7 rating against the Steelers defense.

What made his performance all the more impressive is that he managed to pick up the victory despite being backed by only 43 team rushing yards.

The Steelers racked up 105 rushing yards, but even with the balanced support to aid Roethlisberger, it was Jay Cutler who ended up driving the Bears down the field for Robbie Gould to kick the game-winning 44-yard field goal.

If this was any sign of things to come for the Bears, the people of Chicago will have plenty of reason to smile this week.

Chad Ochocinco "Leaps" the Bengals to a Win Over the Highly Favored Packers

Ryan Michael — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:56:46 -0400

Earlier in the week Chad Ochocinco vowed to score against the Packers on Sunday and do the Lambeau Leap in celebration.

On Sunday Ochocinco did both, helping his team pick up a victory in the process.

The Cincinnati Bengals were 8.5 point underdogs to the home-town Green Bay Packers, but ended up defeating the Pack by seven points with a 31-24 victory.

For all those who said that Green Bay's corners were too physical and that Ochocinco would be shut down...

You were wrong.

And it should come as little surprise, seeing as Ochocinco has been one of the most productive and consistent receivers of this past decade.

All it took was one injured season without his starting quarterback for critics to decide that Ochocinco was finished.

That has not been the case this season.

Over the first two games, Ochocinco has caught nine passes for 176 yards and a touchdown, and while that might not seem too impressive at first glance, if he maintains this pace for the entire season his stat line will look like this:

72 receptions for 1,440 yards and eight touchdowns.

Hardly production to shrug your shoulders at.

Now consider the fact that he has been playing with a quarterback who missed most of last season and is taking time to get back into regular form, and it wouldn't be hard to imagine a spike in his production as the season progresses.

Further, Ochocinco has put up these numbers against some of the best corners in the league: Champ Bailey, Charles Woodson, and Al Harris.

So as it stands right now, the Bengals are 1-1 after losing a game they should have won and winning a game they should have lost.

It should be noted that they are facing the vaunted Steelers defense next week so there is a chance that Ochocinco could be slowed down, but I know exactly what Chad would say if you asked him if he was worried...

"Child Please!"

Tom Brady Far From "Terrific" as Rex Ryan's Jets Dominate the Patriots

Ryan Michael — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:28:48 -0400

The Jets' goal was simple: pressure Tom Brady.

The Jets learned, much as the Giants did before them, that when you apply pressure to Tom Brady, "Mr. Clutch" has a tendency to be anything but.

Thus was the case in the Jets' 16-9 victory over the Patriots on Sunday.

Tom Brady was not horrible in the loss, he simply played more like the Tom Brady of 2001-2006 than the Tom Brady of 2007. This time, though, his defense didn't finish the job for him.

Brady's performance against Rex Ryan's defense was a shaky one: he completed only 23 of 47 passes for 216 yards, no touchdowns, and one interception.

His quarterback rating for the day was a lowly 53.1.

While this performance might come as a shock to many, it shouldn't.

The last time we saw Tom Brady stand in the pocket in the face of incredible pressure, he transformed from the record-setting Brady that we saw early in the 2007 season (really a very small portion of his career) into just an average quarterback.

Tom Brady is anything but average, but he played as such on Sunday.

I am not a believer of judging any player by his performance during one game, regardless of how well or poorly he might have played.

This was only one game. But it certainly wasn't a good sign of things to come.

Many expected Tom Brady's return would also bring the return of the 2007 Patriots offense.

Rex Ryan is too clever defensively to allow such a thing to happen.

The biggest mistake that defenses made during the 2007 season was to allow Tom Brady the time in the pocket to make the plays that he did.

Much of that should be a credit to one of the finest offensive lines in recent memory, but ironically, it was that same offensive line that was abused by the New York Giants in Super Bowl XLII.

Blame it on the protection Brady received, or credit it to the Giants for their defensive pressure.

The Patriots loss to the Jets this Sunday was very reminiscent of that day—the last time Tom Brady was put under incredible pressure.

Has Rex Ryan developed the formula to neutralize what many people considered to be the NFL's most dangerous weapon? Or did he simply follow the blueprint that was designed by the other New York team over a year ago?

Either way, it was the Jets' execution of that game plan that contributed to their impressive victory this Sunday.

Their defensive performance was of a caliber that enabled Jets' rookie quarterback Mark Sanchez to perform at a higher level than Brady against a defense that should have been tougher than the one that dominated on Sunday.

Sanchez was 14 of 22 for 163 yards, 1 touchdown, and no interceptions.

He finished the game with a 101.1 quarterback rating, 48 points higher than that of Tom Brady.

A lot of credit should be given to the Jets' defense for this victory.

While many might say that this was an instance where the Patriots "choked" or something to that effect, I would rather see this as an instance where the better team won by simply outperforming their opponent.

Chad Ochocinco Brings Fan Interaction to a Whole New Level on Twitter

Ryan Michael — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 02:53:49 -0400

With the popularity of Twitter soaring to new heights each and every day, it is to be expected that we would be likely to see more and more athletes becoming active on Twitter. While some athletes use Twitter in moderation, such restriction is not the case when it comes to Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver, Chad Ochocinco.

Ochocinco has become perhaps the NFL's most popular user of the site, and has gathered a massive following with over 168,000 followers (myself included).

While the NFL might not appear to be too fond of Chad's devotion to the site, I am.

For starters, I feel that it is everyone's right to express themselves in any way they see fit so long as they are not being irresponsible or offensive.

Chad Ochocinco is neither of the aforementioned.

With as serious a business as the NFL is, I feel as though many people have began to look down upon the ways in which players use their free time.

Someone might say "He should be spending more time on the film room and less time on Twitter," and my response to that would be plain and simple.

Don't judge something for which you have no means of evaluating.

Essentially, it has become easy for people to attack Chad's usage of the website simply because it is out there for all of us to see.

We don't see what most other players are doing during their free time, but we do see what Ochocinco is doing so he becomes an easier target.

When it comes to Chad, I'm not seeing any DUIs, any drug issues, or any violence issues. All I see is a player who never gets into any legal trouble who is having some fun in his spare time.

Do you think that other players might go out to the bar after a long day's work?

If Chad decides to go home, get on the laptop to tweet while he drinks his Cranberry Juice with Red Bull, I say that’s much better than going out to the club and living it up or getting yourself in trouble.

What Chad has managed to do is take fan interactivity to a whole new level.

Through Twitter, fans and enemies alike can have the opportunity to directly interact with Chad (as well as other players) in a way that they never could before.

You want to wish someone good luck before a game, there's Twitter.

You want to insult someone after a game, there's Twitter.

Although the latter has become something of an issue in my eyes.

I saw how many people decided to bombard Chad with a plethora of insults after last Sunday's game yet he decided to respond to a number of them, most of the time with a friendly sense of humor.

I sent him a tweet late last evening and he responded within a few minutes.

That just goes to show Chad’s dedication to his fans.

He doesn't have to write back, ever.

Yet we see him remain as interactive as anyone else I know on Twitter and I think that is something for which we owe Chad a great deal of credit for.

It's not just the direct interaction with the fans; it's about how passionate he is in keeping us connected.

Be it what he ate for breakfast (he'll twitpic it), be it where he went out for dinner, etc.

Chad has found a way to bring his fans into his world in a way that would have once been thought to have been impossible.

For those who have little to no interest in Chad's tweeting, or feel as though he is taking it a little too far, I got news for you...

Nobody is forcing you to read anything.

I for one have been very entertained since I've joined Twitter and I think that's the whole point.

Chad is a true showman and has continued to show all of us why he is one of the most entertaining players in the NFL.

For that I have to say…

Thank you, Ochocinco.

Thoughts regarding my work as well as any professional inquiries can be directed to my email at bleacherreporter@yahoo.com.

Randy Orton and Other Heels Are Being Held Down by a Face-Dominated WWE

Ryan Michael — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 01:55:39 -0400

WWE fans are no strangers to concept of good vs. evil. After all, they see their very own fairy tales develop before their eyes every week as they watch Raw, Smackdown, and ECW.

Within the landscape of the WWE Universe, there exist two entities that are very different in nature.

You have the proverbial "good guys," who we refer to as babyfaces, and you have the "bad guys," who we call heels.

It's rather simple, actually.

John Cena = good.

Randy Orton = bad.

And we see these performers go toe-to-toe on a weekly basis as a matter of competition, pride, and success.

To maintain a balance within the realm of the WWE Universe, the WWE attempts (and I use that word very loosely) to produce results that are equally favorable to both types of Superstars.

The purpose on paper at least, is to maintain a balance as to not have one side win in overwhelming fashion. The result of such would lead to the fans becoming overcome with boredom which would of course result in their failure to buy the product.

The problem is (and it's a rather serious problem in my view) is that the WWE simply cannot maintain even the slightest resemblance of a balance between the two types of Superstars.

Let’s think logically for a moment.

If you have battles between faces and heels, you would imagine that sometimes the good-guys would win and sometimes the bad-guys would win.

Is that not how it happens in real life?

But within the WWE's Universe, the balance of power resides in overwhelming proportion within the side that is the faces.

It's not so much that the results of the matches are overwhelmingly in favor of the faces.

It is that the WWE takes the cheapest route to reach 50/50 results.

There are a few unspoken policies that reside within the WWE's creative writing office that are very rarely broken.

Allow me to break it down for you...

*A top face is never to lose to a top heel as a result of their inferiority or by the heel simply being the superior competitor.

*If a top heel is to acquire a victory over a top face, they must do so with the aid of numbers, illegal tactics, trickery, sneak-attacks, interference, or any other questionable action that can be thought up.

*During very rare occasions, a top face may lose to a top heel in the event that the heel in question is of incredible physical size. The reason being that a loss to a larger competitor is less demeaning seeing as anyone can relate to being bullied.

*A top heel can acquire a "clean" victory over a mid-card-face. This allows the heel in question to build some credible momentum while not coming at the expense of harming the credibility of a top face.

*Under no circumstance is a top -face to ever submit to a top-heel during a clean bout. The result of such an event would harm the credibility of the face in question which is a repercussion reserved exclusively for heels.

What I have done is made a break-down of the results of every WWE/World Heavyweight Championship match contested on pay-per-view over the last 12 months.

The span of this evaluation begins with Unforgiven 2008 and ends with Breaking Point 2009.

I have omitted championship bouts contested between two faces as they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

After those omissions, there were a total of 29 WWE/World Heavyweight Championship matches.

I created a "win/loss" record from the results of these matches.

A win accounts for a face's victory.

A loss accounts for a heel's victory.

A tie accounts for a face's victory as a result of a disqualification.

What we have is a 13-14-2 overall record.

At face value, there would seem to be a generous balance of power.

Fifteen victories for the good guys (albeit two of them as a result of a DQ) and 14 victories for the bad guys.

Again, my issue isn't so much that the heels of the WWE do not win matches and/or walk away with the championship belt, it is the way in which they are portrayed as a whole that is the issue.

Heels are thought of to be cowardly, weaselly, bullies who are never quite able to stand toe-to-toe with the WWE's Supermen.

Sure they can get themselves disqualified, hit a person from behind, or have their buddies gang up on the innocent babyface, but when it comes to a test of pure might, it is a test the good guys are always certain to win.

So I looked back at the 14 victories that the heels of the WWE have had over the past year.

Would you like to take a guess at how many of them were won in clean fashion?

Would you like to guess how many times the bad guys won simply because they were the superior competitors?

Out of 29 total matches and 14 total heel victories, only two times did a heel win because he was the better man on that night.

Let’s take a look at the breakdown of each heel's victory over the past 12 months...

(A * indicates a victory with a questionable finish, clean victories will be highlighted in bold)

*Chris Jericho wins the Championship Scramble by being a late entrant at Unforgiven 2008.

Chris Jericho defeated Shawn Michaels in clean fashion in a ladder match at No Mercy 2008.

*Edge defeated Triple H and Vladimir Kozlov by being a late entrant at Survivor Series 2008.

*Edge defeated Jeff Hardy with Matt Hardy’s interference at Royal Rumble 2009.

*Edge wins the Elimination Chamber match by being a late entrant at No Way Out 2009.

*Randy Orton defeated Triple H after he was distracted by Batista’s possible DQ at Backlash 2009.

*Edge defeated John Cena with the Big Show’s interference at Backlash 2009.

*Edge defeated Jeff Hardy with Matt Hardy’s interference at Judgment Day 2009.

*CM Punk defeated Jeff Hardy by cashing in his MITB at Extreme Rules 2009.

*Randy Orton defeated Triple H with Legacy’s interference at The Bash 2009.

*Randy Orton defeated Triple H & John Cena with The Legacy’s interference at Night of Champions 2009.

*Randy Orton defeated John Cena with Brett DiBiase’s interference at Summerslam 2009.

CM Punk defeated Jeff Hardy in a Ladder match at Summerslam 2009.

*CM Punk defeated the Undertaker after the referee called for a submission that was never made at Breaking Point 2009.

Now is it just me, or is that an inordinate amount of questionable finishes?

We have seen 29 WWE/World Heavyweight Championship matches over the past year and only two times have we seen a heel win simply because they were the superior competitor on that given night.

Furthermore, the two lone “clean” victories came during ladder matches.

Now, I am not saying that a victory in a ladder match is any less significant than it would be during a regular match but it is also not the same as covering your opponent for a clean three-count or making him tap out.

There are a great many accidents that can happen during a ladder match so it is much easier to justify a good guy slipping or falling than it is to see him have his shoulders pinned to the mat or made to submit.

In any event, we are talking about a very minor percentage of what we have seen anyway.

If history is the gauge, top heels have under a 7 percent chance of defeating a top-face by being the superior competitor in a championship match at a pay-per-view.

We do see these top faces get “screwed” 41-percent of the time but if they lose, you can be rest assured that it wasn’t because they weren’t good enough to win.

I expect to see heels use questionable tactics and acquire wins by dubious means but there is a difference between seeing it happen every now and then and seeing it account for 86-percent of their victories.

To me, this makes the art of “putting over” a heel almost non-existent within the realm of the WWE Universe.

The best example of a putting over a top heel that we have seen to date has been Randy Orton with his WWE Championship reign that came to an end at Breaking Point.

He held the title for about four months, competing in four WWE Championship matches.

He won three of them (all by questionable means) and lost the final.

If Randy Orton is the best example of a “dominant heel” as we know it today, then the WWE should be ashamed of themselves.

Not because Orton isn’t just as good or better than anyone he competes against, but because he is booked with the inability to become victorious as a result of his physical talents alone.

So long as the WWE continues to up-hold these unspoken policies, we can expect to see a very predictable dose of World Wrestling Entertainment in the months to come.

That might not bother the WWE but if they are not satisfied with how the ratings have been, they might want to restore balance and make their product a little less predictable.

SPOILERS Become Reality: John Cena Defeats Randy Orton for the WWE Title

Ryan Michael — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:51:47 -0400

As I had known well in advance, John Cena was going to defeat Randy Orton for the WWE Championship at Breaking Point.

The SPOILERS that I had made public almost a week in advance came true, which came as little surprise.

The WWE had already revealed what the result of their semi-main event match was going to be by leaving a trail that would ultimately result in John Cena's satisfaction.

There were two undeniable factors that contributed to this premature revelation, and it was those factors that prevented me from ordering tonight's pay-per-view.

Which is perhaps the lone saving grace of the night.

*It is against WWE policy to allow a heel to defeat John Cena by pure might (meaning that they did not use numbers to their advantage, nor did they find a sneaky way to come away with the victory).

*By following a long-lasting WWE tradition, they allowed the loser of the upcoming pay-per-view (Randy Orton) to gain an advantage during the final television program prior to the event.

In this case, the WWE stayed true to their tradition and delivered the predictable finish.

The fact that this match was to be contested under "I Quit" stipulations immediately erased any chance of Randy Orton coming out on top.

Again, it would violate the WWE's policy that prevents heels from defeating John Cena simply by being the superior competitor.

Without the aid of interference or a clever sneak-attack, Randy Orton competed hopelessly, as his fate had already been determined long before the opening bell had rung.

Randy Orton also sealed his fate by dominating John Cena on Raw last Monday night.

Again, the fact that he gained the advantage prior to the event marked the beginning of the end of his WWE title reign.

The WWE would certainly never allow John Cena to come up short two times in one week.

As of now, Randy Orton chances have never been bleaker as we should not expect a sixth coming of the Age of Orton any time soon. I could get into greater detail regarding that likelihood, but I am going to save that for another time.

Anthony Gonzalez Injured: Should the Colts Sign Marvin Harrison?

Ryan Michael — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:10:08 -0400

During Sunday's 14-12 victory over the Jacksonville Jaguars, Indianapolis Colts wide receiver Anthony Gonzalez suffered a strained knee ligament that should take him out of action anywhere from two to six weeks.

Which means that someone has to now fill the void that will be left in the wake of Gonzalez's absence.

The Colts could always allow Pierre Garcon or Austin Collie to take Gonzalez's position, or they could decide to go a different route.

Unfortunately for the Colts, it is against team policy to sign anyone who wasn't drafted by the team.

There have been very few exceptions to this rule so they might feel as though they are pushing the envelope enough with Adam Vinatieri as it is.

Then there is Marvin Harrison.

After being released by the Colts earlier this year, he has yet to find himself a new home, and with every day that passes, I find it more and more unlikely that he will find a team to play for.

Besides in the event that a team loses a starting wide receiver to injury then...

Wait a moment, that's exactly what we're talking about.

Bringing Marvin Harrison back to Indianapolis might seem like a no-brainer to most people, but a number of things must happen if there is to be any chance of that.

Marvin needs to want to play, let’s make that clear right off the bat.

I have yet to see any indication that would make me think that he has any overwhelming amount of interest to still play football.

Other teams might not have been that interested in signing him, but Marvin has yet to show much interest in playing himself.

While he has always been known to be one of the most reclusive players in the league, it wouldn't take much to deliver a sound-bite, make a public statement, or heck, even tweet.

But Marvin has been about as silent as one can be, almost to the point in which I would have to question whether or not he still exists.

Okay, that might be pushing it.

In any event, the most important aspect to this equation is whether or not the Colts are interested in Marvin Harrison.

He refused to take a pay-cut and opted to try his luck elsewhere after the end of the 2008 season.

Marvin has had no such luck.

I personally would welcome back Marvin Harrison with open arms.

He has a great deal of experience and if nothing else, could provide knowledge to our hungry young receiving core.

I am also not convinced that he has physically lost every bit of the ability that has made him the league's second all-time leading receiver.

The thing is, no one should expect to see the Marvin Harrison of old.

Although this might be a matter of public knowledge or common sense, Marvin is not the same player he used to be.

But that's fine; I don't expect him to be.

I wouldn't put it past Marvin to be able to rack up 800, 900, maybe even 1,000 yards receiving.

The single largest determining factor in this regard (provided he has a team to play for) would be Marvin's hunger and willingness to compete.

He cannot sit on the bench depressed because he can't catch 10 passes a game anymore.

He cannot sit on the bench looking disgusted while Reggie Wayne is torching opposing defenses.

Marvin Harrison would have to be willing to swallow his pride and contribute what he can to the team. Whatever that might be, I feel that he would be worth his asking price if he decided to get reasonable.

If Marvin Harrison were willing to come back to the Colts for a salary no larger than that of a Pierre Garcon or Austin Collie, I say that it wouldn't hurt so long as Marvin can prove to us that he is still passionate about playing football.

That however is a pretty big "if" and it is big enough for me to question the likelihood of this event ever occurring.

While on paper it might sound good to the fans or to NFL Network's "expert analysts", it just doesn't seem likely to me.

We have no idea what kind of condition the 37-year old receiver is in, we have no idea whether or not he has even trained to prepare for playing football this season, we have no idea if he would be passionate enough if he did get to play this year, and we have no idea whether or not he would be willing to play for a reasonable salary.

Being that clueless in regards to what might or might not be a good idea does not seem like solid ground to get our hopes up at this point.

Can the Jacksonville Jaguars Stop Indianapolis Colts Quarterback Peyton Manning?

Ryan Michael — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:49:25 -0400

Week one is less than a day away so it is just about the time in which the Jacksonville Jaguars defensive unit is feeling one of two ways.

Either they have game-planned, prepared, and developed a way to stop Peyton Manning and the Colts’ offense.

or...

They are so sick to their stomach's right now because they know that all of the training and all of the preparation, all of their hard work will still be put to the test as their failure to stop Peyton Manning and the Colts' offense will result in a very poor way to begin the 2009 season.

The Jaguars show signs of improvement and look to better themselves after a disappointing 2008 season.

At this point in time, all they have to do is stop Peyton Manning to begin to start to make the pain go away.

If they can stop Peyton Manning, suddenly 2008 won't sting so bad.

If they can stop Peyton Manning, they will have gained the confidence to know that they have the ability to stop any quarterback in the National Football League.

That is, IF they can stop Peyton Manning.

The last time these two teams faced, an underdog Jacksonville team pushed the Colts to their limit and jumped out to a 24-14 lead.

That was, until Peyton Manning turned on the gas and dissected them on national television.

The Colts quarterback finished the game by completing 29 of 34 passes for three touchdowns, zero interceptions and a quarterback rating of 140.7.

In the process, he led the Colts to 17 unanswered points which resulted in a 31-24 victory.

Peyton Manning went on to secure an NFL-record third league MVP award as the Jaguars went on to be broken down by the Baltimore Ravens, 27-7 in the year's final regular season game.

So you'd think that it would be the Jacksonville Jaguars who would be the hungriest heading into their week one match-up with their divisional rivals.

Perhaps they are.

But think about this for a moment.

If you were Peyton Manning, you just finished with a second consecutive "one and done" performance in the postseason, despite playing well.

If you were Peyton Manning, you were told all off-season about how you would never be the same quarterback without the receiver who made you, Marvin Harrison.

If you were Peyton Manning, you were told that you would not be able to succeed without the future Hall of Fame coach who left you, and that stable system that had since fallen into apparent disarray.

If I were Peyton Manning, I would be pissed off for all the reasons I should be, and all the ones that are inconsequential.

It's called fire and if you think that Manning isn't going to have it this year of if you think that he is going to be but a shell of the declining quarterback that many have accused him to be...just bet against him.

Now you have this Jacksonville Jaguars defense who wants to make a statement at Peyton Manning's expense.

I wouldn't be excited if I played for the Jaguars tomorrow.

I wouldn't be excited because if but for one day, Peyton Manning might despise as if you were the New England Patriots and try to tear you up as if you were the Detroit Lions, regardless of whether or not you have it coming.

If you don't want to deal with that, the task is simple.

Stop Peyton Manning.

The U.S. Open Tennis Finals over NFL's Opening Weekend? Child, Please

Ryan Michael — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:09:25 -0400

A few days ago, someone had brought to my attention; something of a rivalry that I didn’t even know existed. A rivalry between the National Football League’s opening weekend, and the U.S. Open Tennis finals which are to be held this coming Monday.

While some of us are of the belief that the NFL’s kickoff weekend is without question, the most highly anticipated sporting-event in recent months, others are of the belief that the U.S. Open Tennis finals might possess more intrigue and deliver more excitement.

I have to respectfully disagree.

I know what you might be thinking, how can a man who knows exceptionally little about the U.S. Open Tennis finals (or the sport of tennis in general for that matter) provide any rational, substantive argument in favor of an event for which he clearly appears overwhelmingly biased in favor of?

Well as I learned long ago, often times the best defense can be made in favor of the side in which you favor as opposed to simply attacking the other.

I do not claim to know much about professional Tennis, so don’t expect me to deal any low blows within this debate because I passionately feel that the NFL’s kickoff weekend has so much excitement that is to be on display, the U.S. Open Tennis Finals (as well as any other scheduled sporting event) have no means to adequately compete with the NFL in this respect.

I have often heard of the NFL’s kickoff weekend referred to as a “playoff-like” atmosphere.

It marks the beginning of a new season that comes well equipped with enough storylines that professional wrestling’s most creative writers would be overcome with envy.

The only difference of course is that the atmosphere that will be on display this Sunday will be more real as the outcomes have yet to be determined.

How will Tom Brady perform after an almost two-year prolonged absence from the game, while competing with a surgically repaired knee?

We will find out whether or not the Minnesota Vikings have signed “the Brett Favre of old”, or simply a very old Brett Favre.

We will find out what in god’s name Chad Ochocinco has in store for the fans in Cincinnati as he has apologized in advance for the entertainment he has yet to provide.

For hardcore football fans such as myself, the NFL product can become a very addictive substance. A substance that after having been in withdrawal from for seven months too long, we will now finally get out much needed fix.

The catch being that the indulgence of this substance can do us no harm, so long as our team wins.

So with that being said, I’m going to sit back and look forward to Sunday’s games.

Out of respect for Leroy Watson in particular for exposing me to this concept, I just might catch a few minutes of the U.S. Open Tennis finals on Youtube. That is, after I’m done watching football…Monday night.

NFL Critics Suffer from Unsubstantiated Scapegoat Syndrome (U.S.S.)

Ryan Michael — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 13:38:03 -0400

For as long as I can recall, I have seen NFL critics continue to pass judgment while criticizing NFL players for various actions that they feel contribute to the detriment of their teams.

No matter how illogical their accusations can be at times, many have continued to adopt a common misconception that has plagued the minds of NFL fans for far too long.

Now, this misconception has been diagnosed and it is that diagnosis that I would like to help define. I would like to refer to it as...

Unsubstantiated Scapegoat Syndrome (U.S.S.)

1. The process by which a critic, analyst, or fan directs blame in the direction of a player(s) for a team's hardships or failure to reach expectations.

2. Such blame is given without the presence of substantiated evidence to support the theory and a failure to outline (in detail) exactly how such criticized actions do direct harm to the team involved, often times to the extent in which the player does more harm to the team than the good that is contributed as a result of his productivity.

3. Such a belief is rapidly popularized to the point in which it becomes adopted by a substantial sum of people and then becomes widely-recognized as being factual.

Instances regarding this misconceived belief often occur when blame is directed towards those who play the wide receiver position, although this issue is not exclusive to any one position.

Take Terrell Owens for instance.

Many people have criticized his actions over the years but I would like to focus on what has been recent by taking a look back to the end of his stint with the Dallas Cowboys.

Instances in which Owens had made himself vocal regarding his belief of an unfair distribution of passes is probably the biggest issue that came to light.

To briefly summarize, he felt as though Tony Romo was intentionally directing more passes towards Jason Witten which in-turn reduced Owens' productivity.

Regardless as to how accurate Owens' assessment of the situation was, I don't see how he is guilty of much beyond being paranoid.

It also wasn't as though he made the issue public, it managed to leak beyond team walls to the extent in which it became a popularized issue.

The word "distraction" has become quite common in such instances.

Critics feel as though the action(s) of the player in question create a distraction that prevents the team from reaching their full potential. They feel as though it disrupts chemistry which would account for why teams the caliber of the 2007-08 Dallas Cowboys managed to fall short of expectations.

Now, it is quite easy to say that various actions are those of a disruptive nature. The greater issue is that these critics often fail to substantiate their claims.

In Owens' instance, it is easy to simply say that because he became vocal and voiced displeasure, the team began to fall apart at the seam.

But that does not detail the impact his actions had upon his teammates.

When we are talking about professional football players, we are talking about men who have to worry about their individual performance on the field, their wives, their children, their mortgages, and any other hardship you would expect a man to go through.

To imply that a certain player running their mouth affects the performance of other players on the field is a futile statement if it fails to be substantiated to a reasonable extent.

For instance, I could say that Tom Brady's romantic life (which seems to be the focus of tabloids everywhere) is a distraction to his teammates; therefore media circus that surrounded him prior to Super Bowl XLII was a cause for the Patriots loss to the Giants.

I could make that statement which on paper, might appear to make a degree of sense but without doing anything to substantiate it, the argument doesn't hold much weight.

You see, there is nothing easier than saying a person's actions are distractive to the point in which it effects chemistry but that doesn't mean the accusation has any basis in reality.

To many within the media, it just has to sound good.

Another example would be the remarks Skip Bayless made regarding Chad Ochocinco on the Sept. 8 episode of ESPN's 1st and 10.

Bayless blamed Chad's alleged focus on himself and entertaining the fans as a reason why he was incapable of leading the Bengals to the playoffs.

Again, that sounds good on paper but was never substantiated with any evidence.

Why would a critic or analyst blame one player (often times a very productive one) for the failures of an entire team?

Because it is much easier to blame one individual player than it would be to blame an entire offensive or defensive unit along with the coaches that prepare them.

Vocal players are often the subjects of harsh criticism because people love to remain politically correct and find a simple answer to what is (in most cases), a complicated issue.

I cannot recall how many times that I have heard that a specific player was a "distraction" that has "held their team down" but with as many times as such examples have been given, you almost never hear anyone provide an explanation as to how the actions of the individual in question impacted their teammates.

Simply saying that he "disrupted the teams chemistry" and was a "distraction" does not say much of anything and certainly lacks the detail required to make a valid point.

Since they clearly cannot criticize these players' performance on the field, they instead try to attack aspects that cannot be proven or disproven, but sound as though they could be true.

If you see such instances occur in high frequency, you are likely being exposed to someone who suffers from U.S.S.

It is not as though these people are intentionally trying to deceive.

In many instances, such criticism produces a quick answer to a complicated issue while at the same time, does not have to criticize any large majority of people which might complicate the issue further.

After all, it's easier to solve a problem with one player than it is to correct an entire group of those who fail to perform on the field.

That is why we see the Chad Ochocinco's of the world criticized far more than the Cincinnati Bengals' defensive unit.

That is why we see Head Coaches being shipped out one by one instead of seeing a roster re-configuration.

It’s easier that way.

In some cases it's hate, in others it's ignorance.

But the end result is the same.

So long as misconceptions such as these continue to be fed to the masses of people who turn to the "experts" for their expert analyses, we will continue to see instances such as this spread across the sporting world to the extent in which it becomes adopted as factual.

That might not bother most people, but that appears to be the problem.

Skip Bayless Fails to Substantiate His Remarks as He Insults Chad Ochocinco

Ryan Michael — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 01:43:26 -0400

As I watched today's edition of ESPN's 1st and 10, I was not at all surprised to see Skip Bayless insult the program's guest, Chad Ochocinco, while failing to substantiate most of the remarks he made.

Skip Bayless has often been known for being one of the more vocal contributors to ESPN's programming, but I must say that I was quite disappointed to see how he carried himself on today's episode of 1st and 10.

Sadly, I expected him to be rude and disrespectful, but even I was surprised to see the arguments he brought to the table in an effort to make a point at Ochocinco's expense.

I had a feeling that he would decide to take the route of insulting rather than discussing, as he continued to criticize Ochocinco in a number of areas.

It should also come as little surprise that he failed to substantiate his remarks or provide evidence to support his criticisms.

What I am now going to do is break down what Bayless has said on 1st and 10 so we can take a closer look at his accusations.

"I used to be a big fan of yours, right? Going back three or four years ago. But over those past few years Chad, you have lost me because you have lost all perspective on what should really matter to you at this point in your NFL career and that is leading a team to the playoffs instead of your over-the-edge self-promotion of Chad Ochocinco."

What I would like to know is exactly how Bayless (who has no real relationship with Ochocinco) can suddenly read his mind and come to an accurate determination as to what Ochocinco's true perspective really is.

He claims that Ochocinco has lost perspective in regard to "leading a team to the playoffs."

Bayless makes no mention regarding the quality of support that the other 52 men on the roster have provided, as he instead decides to blame Ochocinco for what he feels his true perspective to be.

Allow me to bring some facts to the table.

Below is a list of where the Bengals' defense has ranked each year since Ochocinco joined the Bengals in 2001:

2001: 14th

2002: 32nd

2003: 28th

2004: 21st

2005: 22nd

2006: 17th

2007: 24th

2008: 19th

Average: 22nd

Now while I'm no mathematician, it clearly appears to me as though the quality of support the Bengals have been getting out of a unit that comprises 50 percent of their chances of victory has been poor at best.

What I would like to know is how many teams have achieved great success with a defense ranked 22nd overall?

Furthermore, I'd like to know how well (on average) a team with a defense so poor does year after year.

But in this case, Bayless has concentrated his focus on finding blame with the franchise's most productive player of all time.

He continues his evaluation of the situation...

"And that run away self-promotion Chad has kept you from becoming the great player and I think the great leader that Michael Irvin was for those three Super Bowl teams in Dallas because I think you have that much talent, that much charisma to be a team leader in a game, Chad, that you have no idea is actually the ultimate team game."

Bayless then said, "As you have written in your upcoming book, you live on planet Chad. You are all about twitter. You've closed your account now, but that's what you're about. Your big U-Stream, Live-Stream, whatever it is. You are about Chad and your teammates know it and it keeps your team from becoming the team that it could have become."

Essentially, it is Bayless' belief that Ochocinco is not the leader that Michael Irvin was in Dallas.

Now while I don't want to speculate as to the intent he had while making that remark (because speculation seems to be Bayless' specialty in this particular instance), I would imagine that the fact that the Dallas Cowboys of the 1990s won three Super Bowls is a big part of why Bayless used Irvin's leadership as an example.

I would like to know how successful Bayless feels that Irvin would have been if he played for the poor Bengals teams that Ochocinco has had to play for.

I would also be curious as to how well Bayless would feel those 1990s Dallas Cowboys would have played if they had Ochocinco in Irvin's place.

I mean this as no low-blow to Michael Irvin, but Skip Bayless didn't appear to feel that Irvin being charged with cocaine possession and arriving to court in a full-length mink coat had any impact on his leadership qualities or his ability to not distract the team.

Meanwhile, Ochocinco's use of Twitter and decision to wear a Hall of Fame jacket as part of a touchdown celebration are more than worthy of his criticism.

Bayless continued to add...

"Michael Irvin and Jerry Rice never promoted themselves and they were much better players than you ever hope to become. Right now Randy Moss, Larry Fitzgerald, they do not promote themselves, you don’t hear much from them because they do it on the field.”

While comparing Ochocinco to a Hall of Famer who played 20 years ago might prove to be rather difficult, Bayless feels that Irvin was much better than Ochocinco could ever hope to be.

Meanwhile, he offers absolutely nothing to substantiate that claim.

He feels that Randy Moss and Larry Fitzgerald don't promote themselves because they perform on the field.

I got news for you, so does Ochocinco.

With the exception of last year, which went bad for a number of reasons, I see little difference between the Chad Ochocinco of 2008 and the Randy Moss of 2006.

Productive players are all the better when they are surrounded with teammates close to their caliber and organizations able to succeed.

As great as Fitzgerald has been for the Arizona Cardinals, how well did he succeed in "leading his team to the playoffs" prior to last season?

The reality of the situation is that Fitzgerald has been an amazing player stuck on a very poor team (prior to the end of last season, of course).

Bayless appears to adopt the popular belief that we should blame one of a team's most productive players if he is vocal when the team falls short of success. It's much easier to blame one player than an entire defensive unit, for instance.

If the Bengals' offense was paired with the Ravens' defense, would we even be having this discussion?

Bayless' performance on 1st and 10 should come as little surprise, although I don't find it any less disappointing.

So long as members of the media continue to push these misconceptions down the throats of their massive audiences, we are going to continue to have masses of people adopting various beliefs without any ability to substantiate their accusations.

Do the Cincinnati Bengals Owe Chad Ochocinco an Apology for the 2008 Season?

Ryan Michael — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 03:17:14 -0400

As we all know, the Cincinnati Bengals finished with a disappointing 4-11-1 record during the 2008 season.

To make matters worse, they lost their franchise quarterback Carson Parlmer for 12 games of the year and they saw the franchise's most productive player essentially fall off the radar.

We all know that Chad Ochocinco did not perform to his standards in 2008, but is he the only person there is to blame?

Before the 2008 season began, Ochocinco did everything within his power to attempt to get traded.

After some within the organization began to refer to him as a "cancer" who served as a distraction to the team, Ochocinco decided that he was going to allow the Bengals to own up to their claims.

The Washington Redskins even went as far as to offer the team two first-round draft picks for the disgruntled wide receiver.

The Bengals, however, declined the offer.

It's strange that a team consisting of a number of people who wanted Ochocinco out decided that it was in its better interest to keep him.

That comes as little surprise to me as I know that it is much easier to insult and label someone than it is to back up those claims.

It was easy to blame the "loudmouth" when things did not turn out as well as they had expected in 2007.

After all, we are all taught to believe that wide receivers who love to talk are destined to rip apart the fabric of a team's chemistry and in the process, harm their chances of winning.

Nevermind the production they bring to the table, their impact must be more than enough to compensate to the point in which the production and the package are more harmful than the lack of production that bears no package.

In Ochocinco's case, I have yet to hear a credible defense as to how his presence created a detrimental atmosphere or damaged the team in any way, shape, or form.

But when you begin to lose more games than you win, a scapegoat often becomes the most logical option.

Is it not easier to throw the blame on the shoulders of an individual than it would be to throw the blame on the shoulders of an entire defensive unit?

We are talking about a Bengals defensive unit that averaged a ranking of 23rd from 2001 to 2007.

Now can anyone tell me how many teams have achieved great postseason success with a defensive squad ranked 23rd?

No, Ochocinco never seemed to offer criticism in that direction.

As a matter of fact, I recall Ochocinco blaming himself after a 51-45 loss to the Cleveland Browns during week two of the 2007 season.

As he reflected, "if they score 51, then it is our job to go out there and score 52."

Without a single ill-word directed toward the defensive unit that gave up 51 points, he blamed himself for the loss despite catching 11 passes for 209 yards and two touchdowns (becoming the franchise's all-time leading receiver in the process).

The way I see it, Ochocinco played like a Hall of Famer for six years straight prior to the beginning of the 2008 season.

If the rest of his teammates performed as well as he did, the Bengals would have been a dynasty, but the reality was they didn't.

I never seem to recall any of the defensive players being called out.

So what many people did was take the Bengals’ most productive player and find a way to blame him for their misery.

That seems to be in great contrast to what Ochocinco gave to the Cincinnati Bengals.

Not only did he become the franchises' most productive player, he gave people a reason to care about Cincinnati Bengals football.

Suddenly, no longer were they the infamous "Bungals," but they were a team that if nothing else, would provide a healthy dose of entertainment so long as No. 85 was on the field.

I would wager to bet that the Bengals sold more Chad Johnson jerseys since he joined the team in 2001 than they did of all their players combined from the decade prior to his arrival (1991-2000).

If revenue is what is important to a franchise, Ochocinco brought in the dinero as well.

Then, the 2008 season began after Ochocinco did everything he could to get out of what he called "a bad situation."

Can you really blame him?

How would you feel if you played at a Hall of Fame level for the majority of your career, only to have the team accomplish nothing in the process?

If Ochocinco was drafted by the Patriots in 2001, we might be talking about him being the greatest wide receiver of all time behind Jerry Rice.

But no, he was drafted by the Bengals and produced anyway.

Ochocinco admitted to not working out hard or preparing for the 2008 season to the best of his capability.

Hence, he got injured in the preseason and was far from top form during the remainder of the regular season.

I am not of the belief that Ochocinco woke up one day without any talent. I'm also not of the belief that he has lost a step.

Ochocinco of 2008 reminds me of Randy Moss in 2006.

We saw Moss catch 42 passes for 553 yards and three touchdowns while playing for a horrible Oakland Raiders team.

Last year, we saw Ochocinco catch 53 passes for 540 yards and four touchdowns on a horrible Cincinnati Bengals team.

For those two future Hall of Famers, their performance reflected the quality of their teams and being surrounded by no chance of success motivated them to produce at a fraction of their capabilities.

We then saw Randy Moss land smack-dab in the middle of a dream team in 2007 as he went on to catch 98 passes for 1,493 yards and 23 touchdowns.

Being surrounded by a team of quality players motivated Moss to play at the level he was capable of.

You can criticize these men all you want by saying that there is no excuse to ever give less than 100 percent.

That might sound good and politically correct, but every man has their limit.

So who do we blame, the player or the organization?

I can understand blaming a player for not giving their best effort, but why has it become taboo for a player to criticize an organization or their teammates for doing the same?

Only Ochocinco did not speak out on what the reality of his situation was.

He didn't expose the organization or the rest of his teammates for what they had contributed for the group's chances of success.

He simply asked to be removed if people within the organization felt that he was to blame for their troubles.

A year removed from Ochocinco's protest, he appears to be back in top form and willing to contribute his best, regardless of how well the rest of his team performs in return.

The good news for both sides is that the Bengals look to be much improved and have the potential to make 2008 a distant memory, or nightmare if you will.

The real question now is if the Bengals improve and Ochocinco returns to the "Chad of old," who will we have to credit for their success?

Is All of the Tom Brady Fantasy Football Hype Really Justified?

Ryan Michael — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 02:08:32 -0400

With the upcoming season only a few short days away, the topic of fantasy football has become quite popular.

As too are the quarterback prospects for this 2009 season.

If you follow fantasy football, no doubt you may have seen Tom Brady ranked highly on most lists.

But is that high ranking really justified.

While it has become quite unpopular for almost anyone to offer any criticism in Mr. Brady's direction, I prefer to take the logical approach.

Many people expect Tom Brady to be one of the most productive quarterbacks in the entire league this upcoming season.

He is expected not only to make a healthy recovery from a devastating knee injury but he is also expected to return to 2007-esque form.

But which Tom Brady are we to expect?

The Tom Brady of 2007 or the Tom Brady of 2001 to 2006?

If we are talking about the Tom Brady of 2007, we are talking about virtually the most productive season in NFL history (if we are speaking totals and not production per-game).

Tom Brady 2007

398 of 578 (68.9) for 4,806 yards, 50 touchdowns and 8 interceptions.

Quarterback Rating: 117.2

But then we have the Tom Brady who took the field for over 85-percent of his career.

How productive was he?

Tom Brady 2001-2006

316 of 510 (61.9) for 3,593 yards, 24.5 touchdowns and 13 interceptions.

Quarterback Rating: 88.5

The differential in production is staggering.

In 2007, Tom Brady produced 1,213 yards and 25.5 touchdowns more than his career average. His touchdown production more than doubled and his interception rate decreased by more than 38-percent.

The result was a quarterback rating 28.7 points higher than the Tom Brady who took the field for the majority of his career.

To put that into perspective, the differential between his 2007 quarterback rating and the rating he maintained for the rest of his entire career equates to the same differential between the career quarterback ratings of Joe Montana and Rick Mirer (92.3 to 63.6).

So which version of Tom Brady are we more likely to see, the Tom Brady of one single spectacular season or the Tom Brady we all knew during his Super Bowl winning seasons?

Logically, we all know that throwing to Randy Moss and Wes Welker is a lot easier than throwing to Troy Brown and David Patten. So I'm not saying that the circumstances are identical either.

What I am saying is that the level that Tom Brady played in 2007 was the exception to his career, not the rule.

The fact is however is that he is playing with an offense exceptionally similar to that 2007 squad.

But yet again, people tend to forget how well Brady played when we last saw him in 2007.

His final two games were also drastically different than the Tom Brady we saw during the majority of that 2007 season.

Tom Brady (AFC Championship & Super Bowl XLII)

51 of 81 (62.9) for 469 yards, three touchdowns and three interceptions.

Quarterback Rating: 75.6

The quarterback so widely known as "Mr. Clutch" did not seem to reflect that moniker during the last real action he had on the football field.

Now he is almost two years removed from regular competition and we expect to see the Tom Brady that took the field during the very small minority of his career, even despite the fact that he is playing with a surgically repaired knee?

I'm not saying that Tom Brady will not do well this season, I'm just saying that people should take a closer look at number of things before they so quickly jump to these lofty expectations on account of what in reality was, a very small percentage of his career.

Randy Orton Dominating Cena on Raw Marks the End of His WWE Title Reign

Ryan Michael — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 01:19:28 -0400

The Age of Orton is now days away from coming to an end as Randy Orton's dominance over John Cena on Raw signified the beginning of the end by following a long-time WWE tradition.

It has become customary for the loser of the upcoming pay-per-view to make a statement on the final television program prior to the event.

Randy Orton did just that.

As he took John Cena down with his patented elevated-DDT, he followed it up with an RKO on the steel chair. The result of course was John Cena being left completely rehabilitated in the middle of the ring as Randy Orton told Cena that he would be saying "I quit" at Breaking Point.

But John Cena will not be the man to say "I quit" this Sunday, Randy Orton will be.

With as quickly as the WWE got itself on track by building a somewhat-credible title reign with Randy Orton, it will be just as quick to come to an end this Sunday.

John Cena is all about hustle, loyalty, and respect. It is that "never say quit" attitude that will proper John Cena to a predictable victory this Sunday at Breaking Point.

If there was any chance of the WWE allowing Cena to build to momentum going into the pay-per-view so Orton could pull out a surprise victory, that chance is now gone as the results for the upcoming pay-per-view have been prematurely revealed.

No surprises coming this Sunday as John Cena will begin his sixth heavyweight title reign.

Goodbye Age of Orton, it was great for how little it lasted. (*)

Ryan Michael's Pre-Scripted Promo: Randy Orton Meets Bob Barker (9/7/09)

Ryan Michael — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:41:52 -0400

Monday Night Raw opens with a video package that details the events from a week prior. The crowd begins to break out in boos as they watch Randy Orton take out Dusty Rhodes on the Titantron.

The show then opens with celebrity guest-host Bob Barker standing in the middle of the ring. The crowd displays their affection for Bob Barker as he is greeted with applause and affection.

With a microphone in hand, Bob Barker says the following:

"As you all know, my name is Bob Barker, and I will be your celebrity guest host for this evening's event. While I wanted to share with all of you my plans for the night, I have something that I have to take care of as my first order of business.

Randy Orton.

I would like Randy Orton to come down to the ring and explain his actions from last week. Seeing as I am the guest host for the evening, I cannot afford to run this program without structure. And as we all know, there are a great many things that we all found to be unsettling about last week's program, and I cannot allow them to remain unsettled any longer.

So Randy Orton, I would like you to come on down to the ring right now because I feel that you owe all of these people an explanation for your actions."

Bob Barker stares at the Titantron and awaits the WWE Champion's arrival. Surprisingly however, we see nothing, as Randy Orton apparently refuses to adhere to Barker's demand.

Bob Barker then says the following:

"I find this to be most troubling, however, not surprising. Often times I've learned in life, it is the bullies who refuse to answer the call when the time comes for them to face the music..."

Suddenly Randy Orton's music hits as the WWE Champion makes his way to the ramp with his championship belt over his shoulder and a look of contained rage in his eyes. He makes his way to the ring and takes a microphone.

"This is exactly why I did what I did to Dusty Rhodes last week."

Bob Barker as well as all of the fans in the arena have confused expressions on their faces as they wait for Orton to continue.

"This idiotic celebrity guest host nonsense has gone on long enough.

Vince McMahon, in all of his infinite wisdom, felt that it would be a good idea to allow morons to run his flagship show simply because they are popular and can draw ratings.

This is Monday Night Raw, not The Price Is Right, Bob, and you just happened to land yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Bob Barker interjects:

"Now listen Randy..."

Orton responds:

"No you listen to me, you decrepit old man, I don't take orders, I give them.

Last week I did what I did to Dusty Rhodes because he had no business coming back. He had no business coming onto my show and showing me disrespect.

I don't care whether or not he decided to help me out on account of his son, the fact that he decided to show his race on Raw after what I did to him two years ago was disrespectful.

And as sick as I am of seeing these old so-called Legends come back to live off of what they did for this business in the past, I'm even more sick of having to see people like you come onto my show and act as though you know something when deep down inside, you don't know a damn thing.

If you watched even one week of our programming, Bob, you would know that calling me down to this ring and trying to get me to answer to you and all of the ingrates in this arena tonight is bad idea.

It's a bad idea if you value your health, and it's a bad idea if you want to stay conscious long enough to finish wasting your time on this program."

Bob Barker responds:

"Don't threaten me Randy.

I've been in this world long enough to know which battles I need to fight and which ones to steer clear from.

Now, I'm not about to jeopardize my safety and well-being by picking a fight with a bully.

And a bully is exactly what you are, Mr. Orton.

So since you want to come down here and threaten an 85-year-old man, I'm going to tell you what I'm going to do for you.

Tonight, you will be competing in a match.

You will be competing against the same young man that you were supposed to compete against last week.

Tonight, it will be you, Randy Orton, against Cody Rhodes in match made famous by his father, the American Dream, Dusty Rhodes.

Tonight, it will be you Randy Orton competing against Cody Rhodes in a Texas Bull-Rope match.

But here's the twist.

If you manage to win tonight Randy, then both Cody Rhodes and Ted DiBiase will be banned from ring-side at Breaking Point this Sunday.

In addition, if you decide to put your hands on either me or John Cena tonight, you will vacate the WWE Championship.

Good luck tonight Randy, I think you might need it."

Randy Orton then steps back away from Bob Barker and exits the ring.

He slowly makes his way back up the entrance ramp while looking Bob Barker in the eyes, furious but with no means of letting out his frustration.

IMPORTANT NOTICE:

Please be aware that the above scripted promo is 100 percent fictitious. In no way do I endorse any of the comments or views presented in the promo. Randy Orton portrays a villainous character on television, therefore the promos he cuts are going to represent an attitude and beliefs of a bad guy.

I do not intend for any of the content presented in the promo to be taken seriously as I view the content as being similar to what a villain would portray in film or on television.

In no way do the attitudes and beliefs expressed in the promo reflect how I would feel about any real life situation.

Thank you for your understanding.

WWE Breaking Point SPOILER: Randy Orton Drops the WWE Championship to John Cena

Ryan Michael — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:09:43 -0400

About two weeks away from the WWE's brand new pay-per-view event entitled Breaking Point, the results from the main event are already in.

In the event that the title of the article has not already revealed the outcome, I would suggest not reading any further if you hope to be surprised after watching the event.

However the likelihood of that happening is bound to be quite slim. It is not as though you really needed me to tell you who was going to win the WWE Championship, but I will nevertheless.

John Cena has been without a heavyweight championship for over five months and is destined get one soon.

The WWE has established a well-known precedent that ensures that Cena will not go without a major championship for any extended period of time.

The time is now for John Cena and it doesn't matter whether or not this move will be beneficial to the WWE or their audience, what matters is that he will be satisfied.

An "I quit" match has a lot of potential to be order-worthy, it's just too bad that it carries with it a very predictable finish.

Who is going to say "I quit?"

The man who has already guaranteed victory and has the "STF" as an available move within his arsenal, or the real champion whose most devastating submission maneuver is a headlock?

Of course Randy Orton could beat Cena down with pure might and drive him to the "breaking point" which would then force him to say "I quit."

But it will NEVER happen that way.

It is against WWE policy to allow a heel to obtain a victory over John Cena through pure might or by being the superior competitor.

The heel must either win by the aid of bending/breaking the rules or allow the numbers game to take advantage of the given situation.

We must also keep our eyes open for the time in which Legacy turns on Randy Orton.

Whether they do so to cost him the WWE title or if they wait until Cena has already defeated Orton, that time will come in the very near future.

Ted DiBiase will turn on Orton because he needs to become adored by the fans. If he doesn't earn their affection, his upcoming DVD The Marine 2 will flop even worse than expected.

Or perhaps Cody Rhodes (with or without the aid of Dusty Rhodes) might turn on Orton to get revenge for what he did to his father.

So we will either see one or both of them betray Orton in the coming months.

What we do know is that John Cena will win the WWE Championship at Breaking Point, the only uncertainty is how the WWE will script the finish.

Since I already know who will emerge victorious, I have no interest in ordering it. I will keep an open eye to see whether or not they will grant Randy Orton his rematch (and any chance of winning) during the following pay-per-view.

Otherwise, I might have to skip out on the next one, too. (*)

NFL Network Blows Their Countdown Regarding Peyton Manning & Tom Brady

Ryan Michael — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:04:32 -0400

If you are a fan of the NFL Network, you have likely watched a number of their "Top-10" countdowns. After watching their list of the "Top-10 Single Season Performances", the NFL Network has again managed to put as little effort into the production of their countdowns, as their "Expert-Analysts" often do in preparation for their program, "Total Access."

I will get down to the point.

Their original countdown of the top-10 single season performances ended with Peyton Manning's 2004 season taking the top spot.

Tom Brady's 2007 season has since replaced that top spot if you've watched their updated version which aired earlier tonight.

While I respectfully disagree with their conclusion, that is not the topic of discussion in this article as I could understand why some would feel Brady's 2007 season to be the better of the two.

The real issue is, when Tom Brady's 2007 season replaced Peyton Manning's 2004 season, NFL Network decided to omit Manning's season all together.

Essentially, it was ranked number one before Tom Brady had his MVP season in 2007. They felt that Brady's season was more impressive, thus is secured the number one spot.

That's fine.

But logically speaking, if Peyton Manning's 2004 season was more impressive than numbers 10 through two on their list before the inclusion of Brady's 2007 season, common sense would tell you that it would then become the second greatest single season performance according to their countdown.

Instead, the NFL Network removed it all together.

To make matters worse, you would have to watch their clip detailing Tom Brady's 2007 season.

They took video clips spoken by Adam Schefter, Brian Baldinger, and Kurt Warner, and applied the exact same sound-bites to make it seem as if they were talking about Brady's 2007 season.

Since both quarterback's seasons were quite similar, the sound-bites appear to have match up pretty well. The problem is, it isn't possible given that the sound-bites were recorded before the 2007 season even began.

While this might not appear to be an issue to some people, it displays a complete and utter lack of effort on the NFL Network's part.

All they would have had to have done is put Brady's 2007 season in place of Manning's 2004 season, place Manning's season at the number two spot on their countdown and knock everyone else down one spot in light of what Tom Brady did in 2007.

I can speculate as to why they did what they did and I feel that it’s a pretty logical assumption.

They wanted to make their countdown appear more diverse and given the similar performance between Manning in 2004 and Brady in 2007, they erased one of the two and kept the original entries as to not make a list appear to repetitive.

At the same time, they saved themselves the trouble of creating new material by simply taking clips from their original program and inserting them to make reference to a completely different player during a completely different season.

That might be a logical way to save a little bit of production time, but not if you care about how the quality of your product appears to the public.

While many people might either not be aware or might not care, what the NFL Network has done is displayed a very poor attempt to make their countdowns credible.

I understand that many people could argue as to who belongs where on their lists and that's perfectly understandable seeing as sports is as subjective as anything else you'll find in life, but to have once established the placement of one player's season and to then remove it entirely simply defies logic.

The NFL Network is great in that it provides the fans with continuous coverage of the NFL, and a plethora of programming for their fans to get their daily fix. I simply would expect a lot more from the league’s official network because if the NFL wants to represent itself as a quality brand, their official television network should reflect the same standard.