I was a big T.O. fan for most of his years with the 49ers. The game-ending clutch catch he made in the playoffs against Green Bay (I believe that was in 1997) kick-started his career and established him as a 49er playoff hero. I loved the Sharpie celebration, loved the dance with the pompoms (though I remember he didn't hand the pompoms back to the cheerleader after his dance, but tossed them on the ground -- an early sign of gracelessness?). I loved the dance on the Dallas star. I felt, for a long time, that T.O.'s sins were not sins of apathy or quitting. And then, the more time he spent in San Francisco, the more he degraded. He started quitting on routes and short-arming passes. He started publicly berating his coaches and his QB. When he used the media to smacktalk his team, that's when I changed my opinion on him.

When the Eagles signed T.O. after that abortive mess with the Ravens, I thought, "Oh great, that asshole is going to get himself a championship now, and the Eagles are getting themselves a championship by cooperating with that asshole." I figured that T.O.'s happy act would last about a season long, and I was right. At least I was wrong about them receiving a Super Bowl victory for selling their souls.

The fact that T.O. wore an Irvin jersey after the loss to the Cowboys is funny on a few levels. Not only is he wearing the jersey of a retired standout player from a (deservedly) hated division rival, but he was wearing the jersey of a player whose career ended in Philadelphia. For those who don't remember, Michael Irvin fell on his head during a game in Philadelphia. He was taken off the field with a neck brace. Scary-looking injury. The fans in Philly? They cheered. I think Irvin was one of the most classless and obnoxious people in sports, but they cheered a career-ending injury. Forget that Santa Claus incident. They cheered a potential crippling.

Those punks got what they deserved from T.O. Remember the last line of the parable about the woman who rescues the wounded snake: "Bitch, you knew I was a snake when you picked me up."

While I agree with you that Rodney Harrison was the true MVP of SB 39 (like I thought Ty Law was the true MVP of SB 36), the award went to Deion Branch, not David Patten. If you're going to flog some point about how much more football you know than other people do, it helps to get some simple facts right.

Yes yes, receivers can't get anything done without a QB to throw them the ball or an O-line to block for the QB... What of it? Running backs don't get very far without O-lines. Quarterbacks don't get very far without receivers who can't get open. All you're proving is that football is a team sport, and it's disingenuous to bring up receivers' dependency on teammates as support for that increasingly indefensible contention that a wide receiver is worth as much as a punter. Punters are on the field for a handful of plays every game. Wide receivers are on the field for... well, lots more plays than that. If they're not catching the ball, then they're throwing blocks for running backs, or running routes to clear safeties out of the box... Whatever. You can't suggest that a player is not valuable just because he doesn't touch the ball every play -- otherwise, why are you waxing so fulsome about the importance of linemen?

The fact is that wide receivers who can run good routes, block downfield, make catches in traffic, and get yards after the catch (T.O. can do all of these things when he's not feeling sulky) are an integral part to any modern NFL offense. It's more than just hiring some fast fool to run downfield and catch the ball when it's thrown to him. There have been plenty of fast guys who couldn't make it as a receiver in the NFL because they couldn't do enough of the things on the checklist above. You're just twisting yourself into more and more awkward positions as you try to justify that silly contention about receivers and punters.

I agree that the Bailey fumble on the one yard line should have been ruled a touchback for the Pats, but just imagine all the bitter "TUCK RULE 2!!!!!!!" screams from the Broncos and anyone who doesn't like the Pats.

I agree with King, on principle, about scrapping the force-out rule, in the interest of removing as many "judgment calls" as possible from the game. no, I don't think it would lead to DBs piggy-backing receivers off the field. however, I don't think it would get past the Competition Committee, who are looking for new ways every year to entice offenses to heave the ball up in the air more often.

Great explanation from dsholt about the significance of the end zone. That explanation pretty much gets into the heart and soul of football -- it's all about defending territory.

If you are going to question the fumble = touchback rule, do you have a problem with the safety? You know, sack a QB or bring down a runner in your own end zone, and you score 2 points and force the other team to kick off to you. Do you think that a safety should be treated just like any other sack or tackle for a loss?

Clearly, all sorts of magical shit happens in a football end zone. Mere mortals should not question the logic of what goes on in one.

Pete Morelli, the referee who overturned Polamalu's interception, had a rock thrown through his window.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5257526

Wow. Imagine if he'd ruled against the Raiders.