A very Brady special

As I said when the NFL season started... this is the golden age of football.

If you are a fan in 2010 you can get as much football as you can stand. And then some. We can thank the invention of cable television for that. We can thank ESPN. And mostly we can thank the NFL Network. The league has never been more competitive and for those of us who love it we can basically spend 24/7 watching nothing but previews, games, highlights, specials, tributes, you name it. I hate to think what my days would look like if I hadn't gotten married. It wouldn't be pretty. Thanks, Dev.

On those nights when Dev is out doing her thing, I turn on Channel 265 (the Network) and catch "Total Access," "NFL GameDay" (with my man Prime), "America's Game," "Playbook," or any number of great programs. This year the Network has added another classic show -- "The Top 100: The NFL's Greatest Players."

TOP 100: Who you got?

Like everything the NFL Network (in collaboration with legendary NFL Films) touches, it is great sports entertainment. Once a week ten players are unveiled, profiled in interviews and highlights in the way that only the NFL does. Thursday at 9 p.m. has been must-see-TV since the show debuted in early September with pick #100 -- Joe Willie Namath. Perfect choice to start the list.

Each pick has either been a "I loved that guy!" player (#97, the late great Derrick Brooks; #85, Marcus Allen) or a history lesson into players I have only heard about (#83, Norm Van Brocklin; #64 Herb Adderley, just to name a few). There have been players I can't stand (#61, LaDainian Tomlinson) and players that I named my fantasy football team after (#65, Randy Moss). I've been enjoying every minute of it.

Until this week.

My tailgating friends and I have kicked around which Patriots would make the list. We knew the great Mike Haynes would be there even though he is best known for his years as a champion Raider. He was (#49). Some thought Rodney might make it. He hasn't. Some thought Willie McGinnest would be there since he holds the NFL record for most post-season sacks. OK, just I thought Willie would be there. He should be!

We all knew two Patriots who would be there. Hall of Famer John Hannah. And Tom Brady. The only real debate concerning them was which one would be in the Top 10? The greatest offensive guard to ever play the game or one of the three or four greatest quarterbacks. Some were sure Hog Hannah would make it near the top. My money was on the QB.

We were all wrong.

As this week's list of numbers 30-21 was unveiled there were some all-time greats. Jack Lambert, Emmitt Smith, Dan Marino. Then came #24. John Hog Hannah. Sports Illustrated named him the greatest offensive lineman ever to play the game many years ago. He hasn't lost that honor as far as I know. But he didn't make the Top 20. Even if you figure that the best player at each position (minus kickers, of course) should be ranked high that would mean Hannah would have to be in the Top 20. Anyone who saw him lead block on a sweep play would certainly agree. But if you check out the up-to-date list of the rankings at NFL.com you will see, in the second column, that Hannah did not get any votes from fans when they were polled online. None. Zero. He did not rank in the Top 100 with fans. So much for my theory that most football fans are historians of the game.

OK. Hannah 24. I can accept that. That leaves Brady. Three Super Bowls. 50 touchdowns in one season (that's a record). A great leader. A model player (GQ covers aside). A fierce competitor. One of the all-time clutch QBs. His story isn't even finished yet. I figured it would be a few more weeks before #12 came on the screen. I was just finishing my beer as the profile of #22 Gayle Sayers wrapped up (yes, I was a little close to tears on that one). Up next, number 21.

Tom Brady.

Uh, excuse me?

BIG 3: Unitas, Montana, Brady.

Number 21. How is that possible? From what I've read there are 17 QBs in the ranking. Here are the ones unveiled before Brady... 100. Namath; 91. Fran Tarkenton; 90. Kurt Warner; 83. Van Brocklin; 82. Steve Young; 80. Troy Aikman; 51. Bart Starr; 50. Terry Bradshaw; 46. Roger Staubach; 33. Sid Luckman; 25. Marino; 23. John Elway. That's twelve. Brady makes thirteen. So, according to my math, that means there are four quarterbacks that are ahead of Brady. (I won't even get into the fact that Bradshaw and his four rings being ranked 50th is ridiculous).

Of course Joe Montana, the best QB ever, is ahead of Brady. I would put him at #1 overall. But if Elway isn't. And Marino isn't. And Bradshaw isn't. Who are the other three?

Manning (Peyton, not Eli) would have to be one of them. But he better be #20 because he and Brady are so close that they have to be side-by-side. If he's in the Top 10 and Brady isn't then people just haven't been paying attention. Johnny U would get the nod to represent the great QB not in the modern era. That leaves one signal caller on the list ahead of Brady. Who could that be? Oh no. Not him. You've got to be kidding.

Brett Favre. It has to be him. He of the most touchdowns in NFL history. But he also of the most interceptions, most fumbles, most stupid game-killing plays, and most unretirements in league history. He also of one -- one -- Super Bowl title. Brett Favre -- as great as he is and as much fun as he is to watch when he's not sending cellphone photos of his body parts to women -- should never be rated ahead of Tom Brady. Ever. Or Terry Bradshaw. Or Roger Staubach. Or Troy Aikman. But since his name hasn't surfaced yet, I guess it's safe to assume the icon of ESPN is ranked in the Top 20. Why am I surprised.

While I was still trying to digest Brady's ranking at 21, a familiar face came on the screen. New York Yankee Derek Jeter. Of the New York Yankees.

Did I mention that each player is profiled by another player or a celebrity or a coach or someone relevant to the guy being honored? Reggie Bush on LT. Aikman on Michael Irvin. Warner on Marshall Faulk.

So the video on Brady starts -- the video I'd been waiting weeks to watch. The video that came about two weeks too soon. And the guy the NFL picks to talk about the greatest New England Patriot is Derek Jeter? And he's wearing a Yankees cap?

OK, NFL. Are we even for Spygate yet?

Chemistry lessons

The Patriots are 7-5 after losing three of their last four games. That hasn't happened around here for quite a while. But it was really only a matter of time. You can't have a guy get knocked out and fall out of bounds unconscious so that his fumble doesn't count every year. We all know that, right?

Is the dynasty over? When the Pats aren't a playoff contender then the dynasty is officially over. As long as the Pats have Belichick and Brady and win 10+ games in a season then they still have a shot at a title. Just two seasons ago the team was, and this we all do know, 16-0. Even Joe Montana's 49ers sprinkled in several 10-6 seasons among all the Super Bowls. The Pats can still go 11-5 and host a playoff game. Sorry, that's not a failure. Lose to the Panthers this week and that's a different story. As long as Brady is healthy enough to play I can't see that happening. But if you listen to all the team chemistry experts this week you'd think the Pats had lost 10 in a row and players were taking swings at each other on the sideline.

Sure. Belichick had to send Moss, Thomas, and two others home for coming late to a meeting due to the snowstorm. That's not a good sign. But that doesn't mean the team is coming unglued. It hasn't reached that point yet but why wait till it does when you can write or talk as if it has? More fun that way, right? Nope. Why follow a team if you expect them to fall apart and lose to the Panthers or Bills in the next two weeks? What's the fun in expecting the Pats to let the division get away? They've lost some tough games the past month and that has a way of making a team look less than happy. Less than together. But team chemistry is overrated. Win a few games and the chemistry couldn't be better. Lose a few -- especially close ones -- and the chemistry can go south quickly.

It's the sports equivalent of the chicken-and-the-egg. What comes first? Good team chemistry or winning? Winning breeds good team chemistry but can you win unless you have it in the first place? Amateur psychologists (and ex-Pats greats) Ted Johnson and Richard Seymour weighed in on that subject in the wake of the Pats last-second loss to Miami. They questioned the chemistry and leadership on defense. I wrote early in the season after the win over the Ravens that "They have lost a ton of experience with the departures of Bruschi, Harrison, Vrabel, and Seymour. That may catch up to them when the stakes get bigger later in the year." Is it catching up to them? They had to get younger and faster. But did they get too young too fast? In the last-second losses this year would Vrabel or Seymour (the two players the Pats chose to remove) have made a difference? You never know. But they were on the teams that let some big wins slip away in the playoffs the last few seasons.

The young defense might look lost and dispirited right now but it looked darn good after the first Miami game. Or the Atlanta game. And certainly after the Ravens game. They could have lost any of those. Just like they could have won any of the losses except the Saints game. It's often a very thin line between wins and losses in the NFL. What puts a team on the right side of that line? Chemistry. Experience. Talent. Smarts. They are all a factor. But in the NFL the games are mostly decided by one simple factor -- who makes the most big plays in all three phases of the game. Make the plays when they are there to be made and even a group of players that are at each other's throats look like they love each other. (Right T.O.?)

Seymour says he could have provided the kind of leadership that can make a difference in close games. He might be right. But it's not like his presence assures you of tranquility and confidence. The team chemistry of the '02 Pats -- with Seymour and Johnson as starters -- sure didn't look all that great as they stumbled in the middle of the season and missed the playoffs. That looked like a team with a serious leadership problem. They won the next two Super Bowls. So you just never know.

As Brady said after the Miami game: "We've had a lot of fourth down opportunities this year and we're just not making the plays" It's the second part of that sentence that says it all. They are not making the plays. But the plays are there to be made. Even the most fervent "The season is over and the dynasty is dead" believer has to admit that if this team can start putting together a string of 60-minute games to build some momentum going into the playoffs then they are still a very dangerous team.

Like in '02 after the first Super Bowl, maybe it's one of those years where they just don't put it all together. I'm not even close to being convinced of that yet.