To choose or defer not a toss-up for Pats

587738.jpg

To choose or defer not a toss-up for Pats

FOXBORO - When the Patriots win the opening coin toss, their penchant is to say to the other team, "You decide first if you want to kick or receive."The reasons for any team deciding to defer have been discussed in pretty good detail since the rule was put in a few years back. The prevailing reason cited is getting the ball first in the second half when the game is compressed and possessions become increasingly crucial. Bill Belichick said Tuesday the decision isn't pre-programmed. "We discuss (the decision) every week," Belichick said. " 'We win the loss, we lose the toss. What we're gonna do with the wind . . . relative to what the conditions are?' "There are certainly practical aspects to the conditions that weigh in, but for the Patriots, the quick-strike potency of their offense also makes having the option to get the ball to start the second half appealing. Tom Brady is so proficient at moving the Patriots' offense in for half-ending scoring chances that it becomes doubly-irritating for a team to allow points to the Pats just before the half and then know New England will have the ball to start the third quarter as well. During the Patriots' November win over the Jets, New York quarterback Mark Sanchez called a timeout with less than two minutes remaining in the half and the Jets in scoring position. The stopped clock forced New York to run more plays and give the Patriots another possession before the half. Rex Ryan called the timeout "the stupidest play in football history" because he knew Brady had the potency to score before the half and that New England would get the ball at the start of the second half. "If you take the ball at the beginning of the game you have a chance to have one more possession in the first half," Belichick explained simply. "Take the ball at the beginning of the second half, you have one more chance to have the ball in the second half. It's not like you're stealing from somebody . . . "But what about the uniqueness of the Patriots' offense and Brady's ability to manage the clock?"Time management at the end of the half is critical in every game, regardless of what you do with the coin toss," Belichick shrugged.In Belichick's mind, it seems to be a minor issue. And not nearly as memorable as one instance in which he said he saw "A coach tell a guy what to call (heads or tails). More important, I've seen them criticize what the call was (after a player lost the toss)."Control. Freak.

Haggerty: Jacobs may not be beloved, but he's Hall of Fame-worthy

Haggerty: Jacobs may not be beloved, but he's Hall of Fame-worthy

If it was based solely on his 42 years as owner of the Boston Bruins, it might be debatable as to whether Jeremy Jacobs would have been selected to the Hockey Hall of Fame.

The Bruins have won one championship and been to a handful of Stanley Cup Finals during Jacobs' long stewardship, of course. They also enjoyed the longest running playoff streak (29 years) in NHL history, though it began before he purchased the franchise. Altogether, the B's have won one Cup, four conference championships, two Presidents' trophies, 15 division championships, and 35 Stanley Cup playoff berths during the Jacobs Era.

MORE BRUINS

But Jacobs didn't make the Hall of Fame solely on his accomplishments with the Bruins organization. He's being inducted in the "builder” category, which is defined as "coaching, managerial or executive ability, or ability in another significant off-ice role, sportsmanship, character and contributions to his or her organization or organizations and to the game of hockey in general.”  In addition to overseeing the Bruins over the last four-plus decades, he has been a power broker at the league level for just as long.

"I am flattered to be included in with this great group of 2017 inductees, and I am humbled to be included with the legends of hockey that went before me,” said Jacobs. "Owning the Boston Bruins for 42 years has been one of the most rewarding honors of my life. I am indebted to our team's leaders and players, but most of all, to our fans, for giving me a broad and deeply appreciative perspective of the game."

The 2011 Stanley Cup victory was the overriding on-ice moment in his stewardship of the team, and the Jacobs family has had a major, altruistic impact in Boston. No one should overlook the Boston Bruins Foundation, which has touched so many lives with the $28 million that's been awarded to those in need since its inception in 1993.

Unfortunately, Jacobs will always have a reputation with a large portion of the Bruins fan base that his ownership wasn't willing to spend enough for truly competitive teams. At times he was viewed as an absentee owner living in Buffalo, overseeing the team from afar while Harry Sinden ran the operation. Those fans hold that grudge even today, despite the Bruins consistently spending to the salary cap ceiling while fielding competitive teams. They view Monday's Hall of Fame announcement as something akin to Montgomery Burns being inducted into the Springfield Hall of Fame.

Cam Neely disagrees.

"As a player, I knew of Mr. Jacobs' passion for the Bruins,” said Neely, who has served as Bruins president for nearly a decade after a Hall of Fame playing career highlighted by his years in Boston. "Over the past decade while in the front office, I have seen firsthand his dedication to winning, by consistently providing the Bruins the resources that we need to compete for Stanley Cup Championships and also his unmatched commitment to growing the game of hockey."

That commitment to hockey is a key factor in Jacobs' Hall of Fame selection.

Jacobs was unanimously voted in as chairman of the NHL Board of Governors in 2007, and he's been a major driving force in each of the last couple of oft-contentious CBA negotiations. While Jacobs clearly had a hand in the cancellation of the entire 2004-05 season due to a labor dispute, and in the lockout-shortened season of 2013, those CBA negotiations ultimately led to the imposition of a salary cap and a pathway for small-market NHL teams to survive as the cost of doing hockey business continues to go up.

Without Jacobs as an often hawkish, hard-line owner, there's a chance that a team like the Western Conference champion Nashville Predators might not have been able to survive in the NHL, and it's highly doubtful they'd be able to be as competitive as they are now if teams like Toronto, New York and Chicago could outspend everybody else. So there's no denying the seismic impact that Jacobs made at the league-wide level with his leadership and commitment to growing the game, and that the NHL is better off for the battles waged in collective bargaining while he's been in a position of power.

If you polled every single Bruins fan on the street, it's unlikely he'd be a populist choice for the Hall of Fame. The lean budgetary years durinhg the playing days of Neely, Ray Bourque and others will always be part of the Spoked B history. Some will hold those grudges forever, which is part of makes us who we are as a fan base.

But faithful, rabid fans continue to stream into TD Garden, continue to spend money to support their favorite hockey team, and continue to provide the kind of support that's led to a 338-game home sellout streak. It's a sign Jacobs and Bruins ownership continue to do things very right, even if we shouldn't be scheduling any popularity contests anytime soon.

O'Connor: If C's get George, would Griffin be a better fit than Hayward?

O'Connor: If C's get George, would Griffin be a better fit than Hayward?

The Ringer's Kevin O'Connor discusses the potential decision the Celtics could have in free agency between Gordon Hayward and Blake Griffin. If the Celtics are able to sign Paul George, is Griffin a much better fit?