Editor’s note: The Oregonian mentioned that Chip Kelly may be holding out to move on to the NFL until he can have his dream job — that of head coach of the New England Patriots. NFL writer Luke Hughes and assistant editor Doug Kyed debate whether Kelly would make a good successor for Bill Belichick.

If Chip Kelly is holding out to make the jump to the NFL until after Bill Belichick retires, he may be waiting awhile — possibly forever.

Kelly isn’t a great fit for the Patriots, despite his New England roots and Belichick connection. It’s possible he’s not a great fit for the NFL in general. He’s a 49-year-old college coach, whose first experience as a head coach came just four years ago in Oregon. He’s never coached in the NFL at any level and while a similar spread option offense has been working with the Redskins and Seahawks this season, that has just as much to do with the personnel on the field as the scheme dictating it.

If Kelly wanted to bring his spread option to New England, he would have to look for a different quarterback as well. Granted, Tom Brady could be long gone by the time Kelly comes around, but Brady’s eventual successor, Ryan Mallett, isn’t any better of a fit in Kelly’s offense. If Brady is serious about playing into his 40s, a turn to Kelly could mean booting the best player the Patriots have ever seen from the team. And if the switch from Belichick to Kelly waits until Brady retires, Kelly would be well into his 50s as a first-time NFL head coach.

Can you imagine the mobile-diverse Brady or Mallett taking an option around the edge? You certainly don’t want to, though opposing defenses would love it.

Players like Robert Griffin III and Russell Wilson don’t exactly grow on trees either, and you need that type of player to run the Oregon offense. Cam Newton can do it, Colin Kaepernick can do it and Michael Vick can do it while healthy, but that’s about it. Ryan Tannehill, Jake Locker and Andy Dalton could run elements of the offense, but as we saw this weekend with Griffin, you don’t always want to put your quarterback in harm’s way. Tannehill and Dalton aren’t the runners that Griffin and Wilson are, and Locker isn’t the passer.

You need a very distinct player to run the read option with any efficiency in the NFL. Griffin and Wilson are nearly as big of threats with their legs as they are with their arms and you need elite production from both. The NFL has been waiting years for players who can provide 4.5 40-yard dash speed with 64 percent passing efficiency. The league got lucky with two this year, but there’s a reason we’ve rarely seen it before.

If a running quarterback is going to be a major facet in an offense, you’ll need at least two players that can run it with the same efficiency. In Seattle, Washington and San Francisco, Mike Shanahan, Darrell Bevell and Jim Harbaugh can turn to a different offense if their main signal callers get hurt. Kelly couldn’t provide that option since his offensive style is built around a mobile quarterback threat.

There’s a reason why the NFL has been so hesitant to turn to option-heavy offenses. The spread offense — which has become popular in the last 1o years — can still work because of the balance it can provide. A read option can only work if you can still provide a threat over the top — and few dual threat quarterbacks can provide that.

Players like Tim Tebow, Vince Young and even Joe Webb on Saturday have proven that without an efficient arm, a quarterback with legs simply isn’t enough.

So unless that perfect player like Wilson or Griffin comes to New England just as Belichick and Brady are retiring and Kelly is ready to move over, it might be wise to stay away from Kelly. It’s smart for NFL teams to let the option offense come to them, not actively pursue it.

Click here to read why Chip Kelly would make a good fit in New England as head coach>>

Would Chip Kelly be a quality successor to Bill Belichick as the Patriots’ head coach?>>

Black Monday came and went last week, and seven NFL teams were suddenly in the market for a new head coach. With guys like Andy Reid and Lovie Smith, who both led teams to Super Bowl appearances, back on the market, there were some quality candidates available for teams to pursue. Yet, the hottest name of all sprouted up from the college ranks.

Chip Kelly, the Oregon head coach who brought the Ducks into national prominence over the past few years, was being heavily pursued by numerous NFL teams and appeared to be the front runner on many offseason wish lists. After some tantalizing flirtation with both the Cleveland Browns and Philadelphia Eagles, though, Kelly decided to head back to Eugene, Ore. His refusal of NFL suitors this offseason might just be Kelly’s first venture toward an eventual return home — something the Patriots should openly welcome.

Growing up in New England, in Dover, N.H., to be exact, Kelly always had a great appreciation for the Patriots’ organization. He coached at the University of New Hampshire for 13 years, closely watching in admiration as Bill Belichick built the Patriots into a dynasty comparable to the Dallas Cowboys and Pittsburgh Steelers. Kelly’s respect for the franchise grew so large that he even visited the Patriots’ complex in Foxboro, Mass., ahead of the 2012 season to chat and exchange ideas with Belichick.

Kelly’s apparent infatuation with the Patriots is understandable, given the franchise’s growth and success over the past decade, and if his eyes are on the prize in New England, then it might just explain his aversion to taking any other NFL jobs this winter.

Now, Belichick is still firmly tied in as the Patriots’ head coach through at least 2013, or as long as he wants.  The 49-year-old Kelly would have to wait a few years for his shot, at which point Josh McDaniels, Bill O’Brien or any number of other coaches could be swooning as well. Yet, Kelly would fit into the Patriots’ system just as well, if not better, than any of them.

Kelly is a very hands-on coach, much like Belichick, who runs an extremely tight and well-disciplined program in Oregon , with the dismissals of quarterback Jeremiah Masoli or All-American cornerback Cliff Harris as prime examples. He also is something of an offensive guru, similar to Belichick’s defensive title, and his uber up-tempo style has already infiltrated the Patriots’ offensive scheme this season.

Whenever Belichick does decide to move on, whether that be into retirement or some sort of front office role, there will be suitors aplenty for the opening as successor to his throne. Plenty would be qualified, but Kelly, even without any NFL experience, would have to be among the top finalists.

That reality is probably still sometime off in the distance, and maybe the speculation never comes to fruition, but the prospects of a Kelly-Patriots union are both very intriguing and entirely plausible.

Have a question for Luke Hughes? Send it to him via Twitter at @LukeFHughes or send it here.

Click here to read why Chip Kelly would not make a good fit in New England>>

Would Chip Kelly be a quality successor to Bill Belichick as the Patriots’ head coach?>>

This year that steaming hot commodity is Jeremy Lin.

Lin, a 2010 Harvard graduate with a degree in economics and passion for the hardwood, has spent the past season or so season bouncing around the NBA just trying to find a home.

The point guard's journey from Phoenix to Golden State to Houston and now to the bright lights of New York was a long and arduous one. But Lin's sudden and unexpected surge onto the basketball scene has capitavated the attention of nearly the entire nation, comparing his emergence to even that of Tim Tebow and the "Tebowmania" that held the entire football world hostage earlier this year.

Linsanity, as the asian guard's emergence has been so eleoquently referred to, has taken the country by storm and the Knicks recent five-game win streak is just a piece of the hype machine.

So while Lin continues to put up huge numbers, similar to the near 25 points and 9 assists he's averaged over New York's last five games, the comparisons to Tebow and other such popular polarizing figures continues.

Here are some past and even more recent examples of the same sort of hype that Jeremy Lin is commanding.

Hideo Nomo: Jeremy Lin's 'Linsanity' Brings Back Memories of 'Nomomania' Over Dodgers Pitcher Hideo Nomo

Victor Cruz: Jeremy Lin's Sudden Stardom Remniscient of Victor Cruz's Breakout as Another New York Sports Star

Tom Brady: Jeremy Lin's Sudden Rise to Prominence Mirroring Tom Brady's Surprising Emergence

Jimmer Fredette: Jeremy Lin Obsession Rivals Hysteria That Surrounded Jimmer Fredette During Senior Season at BYU

George Mason: Jeremy Lin's Unexpected Emergence Reminiscent of George Mason's Cinderella Run to Final Four

Hideo Nomo arrived with a bang in the United States in 1995, when the 26-year-old rookie pitcher for the Los Angeles Dodgers won the Rookie of the Year Award and made the National League All-Star team. The nation was gripped by "Nomomania," and not even a diehard Red Sox fan located 3,000 miles from Dodger Stadium was immune to the outbreak.

Sixteen years later, Nomomania is the closest thing imaginable to "Linsanity," the fever over Knicks guard Jeremy Lin that has taken hold of NBA fans and non-fans alike.

As a 12-year-old of Japanese descent, I caught Nomomania worst than most, but the furor knew no racial boundaries. Every young boy's Wiffle ball pitching windup was ruined that summer in an attempt to copy the "Tornado." Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, as a generation of New England Little League infielders would prove a few years later by flinging wild, side-armed throws in the style of Nomar Garciaparra.

Nomo went 13-6 with a 2.54 earned run average in 1995 while leading the NL with 236 strikeouts and three shutouts. He had just two strong seasons after that, going 16-11 with a no-hitter in 1996 and 13-10 with an AL-high 220 strikeouts in 2001, when he threw his second career no-hitter.

A writer for The New York Times compared Lin's story to Jackie Robinson, which goes a little too far. Lin doesn't face the personal or social challenges Robinson faced in 1947 when he broke baseball's institutional color barrier. But like African Americans watching Robinson in 1947, Asian Americans watching Nomo in 1995 and Lin in 2012 battled a "cringe" factor — simultaneously proud to root for one of their own but constantly nervous that some misstep will bring it all to a halt.

Lin's rise could go into a nosedive in the near future, and it's beyond rationality to believe he will continue his current pace of scoring close to 30 points and averaging more than eight assists per game. A few days' worth of excitement was worth making everyone forget about the ugly lockout that preceded this season, though, and that alone is a credit to Lin.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going outside to practice my forkball.

Photo via Flickr/robcuni.com

That same Spring, on the opposite side of the country, a basketball revolution was brewing in Washington D.C. from the most unlikely of sources. George Mason's mens basketball team had put together an impressive season and was ready to prove that Cinderella had in fact returned.

The two stories are mutually exclusive, but the conjoining theme of the unwanted commidity rising from obscurity to achieve unthinkable success certainly draws a unique level of similarity between the two.

Whether you're talking Cinderalla or Linderalla, the unexpected emergence of Jeremy Lin certainly mirrors the magical run George Mason epic run to the Final Four in 2006.

George Mason was an unlikely selection to the NCAA tournament that year, losing two of their final four games and failing to win their conference championship, the Patriots quickly became the focus of much scrutiny and as an 11th seed were given no real shot at even winning a game never mind pulling off the most unlikely of Cinderella runs.

Lin's story follows a similar arc. After a stellar four-year career at Harvard, the 6-foot-3 asian-american point guard was passed over in the 2010 NBA Draft and forced to bounce around the NBA and even demoted to the NBA Developmental League before being given a legitimate shot to shine.

But, while so many similar talents would concede to the pressures of the media and the nearly insurmountable odds, both that George Mason team in 2006 and Lin today believed in themselves and were able to achieve something real and long lasting.

Turn on any television station, radio show or even scour your favorite webpage, Jeremy Lin is sure to be featured or at least referenced in some capacity. Linsanity has truly captivated the country and even spread internationally in some cases. This story of impossible success, overcoming even the biggest obstacles, is inspirational and offers motivation to those in doubt. That's why it is so damn near addicting to follow.

It may be six years in the past at this point, but George Mason's improbable run to the Final Four had the same sort of feel back then. Social Media may not have been quite as prevalent, so the passing of news wasn't nearly as universal or immediate, but Mason was surely the topic of conversation for a solid two weeks. It was the motivational feel-good Jeremy Lin story before Jeremy Lin even stepped foot onto Harvard's campus.

This type of improbable, against all odds, sports journey is a rather rare entity. It's not everyday that you find this same hype and excitement surrounding something that isn't a Blake Griffin dunk or a Duke-UNC buzzer beater. It's a rather refreshing feeling and offers a pure sense of motivation.

Sure, the difference between an entire team like Mason and a single player in Lin is quite a discrepancy to consider, but it's not who overcame the odds but how each unforgettable story came to be. Just like George Mason was unable to reach the peak of excellence as national champions back in 2006 (Florida), Lin may never reach the NBA mountain top either, whether it be an MVP award or even an All-Star appearance.

But, it's that improbable journey and insatiable desire to succeed that will far outlast any banners in the gym or trophies on the mantle place. Something that both that Mason team and Lin will own forever.

Yet as Jeremy Lin's Knicks took on Jimmer Fredette's Kings on Wednesday night at Madison Square Garden, it was tough not to draw comparisons between the hysteria that now surrounds the New York point guard and the season-long obsession with the BYU product last year.

Lin's emergence in the NBA as the league's first American-born player of Chinese or Taiwanese descent is far more abnormal and riveting from a historical standpoint. Not only has he risen to worldwide prominence, but the Harvard graduate went undrafted out of college and was waived by the Golden State Warriors and Houston Rockets before landing in the Big Apple. It's a true underdog story in a sport in which such is extremely unusual.

But the hoopla that we've witnessed — during which every headline and every conversation begins and ends with Lin's name — replicates the fervor that surrounded Fredette's senior season at BYU last year.

Fredette was forced to finish his coursework online to avoid disruptions due to his immense popularity across campus. He became the star of a YouTube reality show. He developed a devoted fan base within the New York prison system. And he joined the elite list of athletes who require just a first name to be identified.

Even the most casual college basketball fan became infatuated with Fredette for a period of time, as his box score and flair for the dramatic became a staple in the openings of sports shows across the nation — something we're similarly being blasted in the face with during Lin's current streak of success.

Fredette's success came on the heels of him being overlooked, perhaps not to Lin's extent, but certainly enough that he wasn't able to land an athletic scholarship at a perennial big-time program. BYU took a chance on him, though, much like Harvard (and eventually the Knicks) took a chance on Lin.

Fredette rewarded the Cougars with sensational play, a win-first attitude and the type of confidence that sports fans drool over. Former Utah coach Jim Boylen said that Fredette's "swagger and confidence" were his biggest weapons. Insert Lin's name into that statement, and it's every bit as accurate.

Thunder star Kevin Durant tweeted, "Jimmer Fredette is the greatest scorer in the world!" at one point during Fredette's magical senior season, during which the BYU standout led all of Division I college basketball in scoring and earned every major National Player of the Year honor. Durant hasn't yet tweeted about Lin's recent heroics, but that seemingly has him in the minority amongst Twitter-using athletes.

Some have even noted in person the similarity between the craziness that once surrounded Fredette and the head-spinning wildness that now follows Lin.

"He feels like Jimmer in college," Kings guard Tyreke Evans said of Lin, according to The New York Times.

Evans' use of "in college" says all that needs to be said, though. Fredette's playing time has been a bit sporadic in his first season in the NBA, but it's clear JimmerMania is very much in the rear-view mirror. "Teach Me How to Jimmer" has given way to "All I Do Is Lin, Lin, Lin," and the world can't help but marvel at what we're seeing each night — for now.

Does "Linsanity" have staying power? It's debatable. Whatever ends up happening, though, sports fans everywhere have become victims of the moment following a small sample size…again.

Then, he made his way into the game and suddenly, things changed. The team had new life. They got on a roll and when the dust settled, we were all left wondering what had happened and whether it could ever continue.

Who does that describe better — Jeremy Lin or Tom Brady?

If you think about it, there's a lot of similarities in how the two burst onto the scene. Both came into their respective leagues as afterthoughts. Both inspired teams stumbling through a season and in need of a spark. Both got fans thinking that maybe they were seeing the beginning of something special.

Who could have known the 199th pick in the NFL Draft would turn into a Hall of Fame quarterback? Who would have thought an undrafted point guard from Harvard could take over the NBA?

The similarities between Brady's sudden rise and Lin's are uncanny, right down to the worries about how an injured teammate (Drew Bledsoe/Carmelo Anthony) would fit into the new team dynamic created in their absence.

But while Brady proved he had they staying power to continue competing for championships year in and year out, it's unclear if the Knicks keep winning and Lin can continue to produce at his insane rate.

And yet, does it matter? Lin is already in the running for the best story in sports this year — which alone is worth something for a sport still recovering from an ugly and seemingly unnecessary lockout barely in the rearview mirror.

Maybe Lin won't grow up to marry a supermodel and won't have (at least) three rings to hang his hat on at the end of the day. But there's always that chance, and we could be seeing another rise to prominence that New England fans lived through with Brady all those years ago.

Yet when the lights shine brightest, there’s usually a player or two that ends up making all the difference on the game’s biggest stage. 

Sometimes, the players who make the biggest difference are the ones you’d expect to. Joe Montana was one of the best big-game players ever and it showed in the Super Bowl. Other times, there are players who you might not think would play a huge role that steals the show — think Desmond Howard in Super Bowl XXXI.

Regardless, there’s always someone who steps up most when his team needs a big individual effort. With star-studded teams like the Giants and the Patriots, Sunday’s Super Bowl will feature plenty of players who may step up to be the ultimate difference-maker.

Here are some potential Super Bowl difference-makers and why they could end up being the difference on Sunday.

Tom Brady

Stephen Gostkowski

Aaron Hernandez

Matt Light and Nate Solder

Mario Manningham

Jason Pierre-Paul

Who will be the biggest difference-maker in Super Bowl XLVI?

The Giants plan to put pressure on Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, which will elicit a "duh" from just about every reader. Next to "establish the run game," "pressure the quarterback" is about the most obvious cliche in the game.

At the risk of drawing a few of those eye-rolls, the Patriots' only chance in Super Bowl XLVI is to keep the Giants' relentless rotation of defensive ends away from Brady, so right tackle Nate Solder and left tackle Matt Light will be the difference-makers for the Patriots. As it always is with offensive linemen, the less we hear their names on Sunday, the better it will be for the Patriots.

Few teams have a foursome of ends like the Giants' Justin Tuck, Jason Pierre-Paul, Osi Umenyiora and Dave Tollefson. Each player had at least five sacks during the regular season, with Pierre-Paul leading the way with 16.5. They combined for 35.5 sacks, accounting for almost three-quarters of New York's 48 sacks, the fourth-highest total in the league.

The pressure on Brady was the biggest reason the Patriots were beaten in Super Bowl XLII and was one of the major reasons the Giants won the matchup back in Week 9 of this season. Defensive coordinator Perry Fewell likes to rush with just four defenders, so the ends could do a good deal of damage if Solder and Light don't come to play.

The incident, which was caught on video by a fan with a cell phone, has generated debate among NFL fans. Is fining NFL personnel for foul language important for the league to control its image, or is it another futile attempt by the league to control behavior?

NESN.com Patriots beat writer Jeff Howe and senior assistant editor Michael Hurley offer opposing views in this week's debate.

Jeff Howe:

I don't think anyone should have a problem with swearing during the game if it stays within the confines of the field, but head coaches like Rex Ryan shouldn't be telling fans how to spend the rest of their day in that type of manner. Everyone on the field is an ambassador of the NFL brand, and if the league wants to hold its guys to a high standard, it's got to make sure players and coaches aren't swearing at the paying customers, even if they deserve it.

Michael Hurley:

What about the fact that it exposes the NFL for some inconsistencies (Hard Knocks, anyone?) and that such fines/penalties are unenforceable, as YouTube vigilantes become the couriers of justice?

Jeff Howe:

If this is about Rex Ryan's fine, I think the NFL was in the right to send a message that it won't tolerate its coaches and players swearing at the fans. I'm sure this stuff happens all the time, but Ryan was guilty of getting YouTube'd during his brief outburst.

Look, I've been on the sideline at the ends of games and heard some nasty stuff from fans — the type of stuff that would cause their mothers to jam a turkey baster down their throat on Thanksgiving. And even if the players and coaches deserve the right to defend themselves and fire one back, they've got to hold themselves to a higher standard in that situation. When they're on the field, they represent their organization and the NFL as a whole (that's "a whole," not "a-hole").

The NFL made its money by airing Ryan's expletive-laden speeches on Hard Knocks, for sure, but he was yelling at his own guys, not the people who pay for tickets. There's a line between entertaining and insulting, and the NFL has drawn it.

Michael Hurley:

I'd argue that rather than draw any sort of line, the league has only worked to obscure it. What if Rex Ryan, rather than saying "Shut the [swear word] up," said something like, "Hey, [lesser swear word] you," or "Go to hell," or "Get out of here"?

Would the fines be administered for less money based on the severity of the swear word used? Is it $75,000 for what Ryan did actually say, $50,000 for words you can say on cable TV, $25,000 for words you can say on network TV and $10,000 for just being plain mean?

Obviously, that's a ridiculous question, but it's just to point out the challenging precedent that was set. It's unenforceable, because the league can't monitor every exchange between fans and players and coaches, and it seems (like many of the NFL's fines) to be one that will be made at the whim of Roger Goodell. Such is the way of life in the NFL these days, and even if the fine for Ryan was fair, the fact that other guys have done the same exact thing and haven't been exposed on YouTube points to the issues with such a penalty.

Worst of all, the league no doubt loved the fact that Rex became a megastar for shouting the unforgettable seven words, "Let's go to eat a goddamn snack!"

Who do you agree with? Vote in the poll below and share your thoughts in the comments section.

Should NFL personnel be fined for using profanity on the field during a game?

Editor's note: Each week, two members of NESN.com's editorial staff will debate a topic via email in a feature called "Field Judges." After reading both sides of the argument, NESN.com readers can give the final say by voting below.

The feelings surrounding the Patriots right now may not be doom and gloom, per se, but they're not good. The team got shellacked by the Steelers in Pittsburgh, exposing what many fear to be problems that won't go away any time soon.

Others — the optimistic folks in the bunch — may feel it was just one bad game and that the Patriots, particularly their defense, are due to improve in the second half of the season.

NESN.com's Michael Hurley and Ben Watanabe debate whether the Patriots are still a lock to win their division.

Hurley: This Sunday is a pivotal day in the AFC East. Conceivably, the Jets, Bills and Patriots could all stand at 5-3 by Monday morning. The Bills have beaten the Patriots, the Patriots have beaten the Jets and, if that scenario plays out, the Bills will have beaten the Jets as well.

By that measure, the Bills could be the best team in the division. Is that a crazy concept?

The Patriots, despite their horrific showing Sunday in Pittsburgh, are widely considered to be a lock for the playoffs and, for the most part, a guarantee to win the AFC East.

The question is — are they?

Watanabe: The AFC East title is a lock for the Patriots. Maybe not the dead solid, stone-cold, 144-percent lock it should be, but it's a lock.

The reason why: Week 17.

The Patriots face their most likely competition for the division crown, the Bills, in the final game of the season. Without getting into the ins and outs, the Bills could be anywhere from 8-7 to 12-3 when they visit New England. The Patriots, however, seem to be locked in as either 11-4 or possibly 12-3 heading into that showdown.

As they say in statistics and the stock market, bet on the one with the lowest volatility. Sure, there's a chance the Bills could be 12-3 and the Patriots could be just 11-4 at that point, but it's highly unlikely given the Bills' history and their inconsistency in three of their last four games.

What's most likely is that the Patriots have their destiny in their own hands for the season finale — and they'll be at home. In that scenario, I will take Tom Brady, Bill Belichick and the Patriots every time.

Hurley: I agree wholeheartedly that the Bills won't be 11-4 come New Year's Day. They're good and they're dangerous, but they’re not equipped to potentially win 12 games. They haven't done that since 1993. Seriously.

However, after Pittsburgh exposed the Patriots' defense on Sunday afternoon, I'm not so sure the Patriots will be in 12-win territory by the end of the season.

They have some very losable games against the Giants, Jets and Eagles on the schedule. Add in their usual "We Were Terrible for One Week" loss that they have every year (Cleveland in 2010, Denver in '09, Miami in '08 … ), and they could be a 10-6 team this year.

Tom Brady's offense is always dangerous, but it's gotten worse as the season's gone on, and the defense is a disaster (32nd in passing yards allowed, 32nd in overall yards allowed).

The Bills' schedule is a little easier, as is the Jets'. It could come down to that.

I agree with you in that if the Patriots-Bills matchup at Gillette on New Year's Day determines the division winner, the Pats can bust out the hats and T-shirts. I'm just not so sure that the Patriots won't be playing to punch their ticket to the postseason that day.

Watanabe: Ugh. Can we agree that they need to do away with hats and T-shirts for a division title?

This feels a lot like arguing which is the sanest Kardashian sister. The Pats, Bills and Jets all have their attractive qualities, but dig a little deeper and you discover their flaws just aren't worth the trouble.

I'm still not sure why my ominous "Week 17" argument didn't sway you, but I'll give it another try. Let's put it this way: How many "D'oh!" losses do we think each team will have. Assuming they'll all lose two or three off pure merit, how many losses will they have that just make fans smack their foreheads and say, "D'oh!"

For the Bills, I count two: one of the Jets games and the Titans (who have inexplicably beaten the Ravens and gotten killed by the Texans already). For the Pats, I see one possibility: The completely unpredictable Chiefs. For the Jets: Well, every single week, to be quite honest.

Maybe this isn't the most scientific analysis, but the Patriots are still the team least likely to beat themselves, and that quality alone could be good enough to win this crazy division.

Hurley: You're right. The Bills are going to lose some games. They have the Cowboys, Jets, Chargers and Patriots all on the road. I just have my doubts that this team is the 11- or 12-win powerhouse that we're accustomed to seeing around here.

What we may see for the first time in a very long time is a Week 17 matchup with a whole lot more riding on it than a lousy shirt and hat.

Are the Patriots a lock to win the AFC East this season?

Editor’s note: Each week, two members of NESN.com’s editorial staff will debate a topic via email in a feature called “Field Judges.” After reading both sides of the argument, NESN.com readers can give the final say by voting below.

Theo Epstein became the president of baseball operations with the Chicago Cubs this week. It comes nine years after he was introduced as Red Sox general manager, an announcement that came with much less fanfare than his news conference Tuesday in Chicago did. 

Epstein was introduced in Boston as a relative unknown before ascending to the status of a local legend after guiding the Sox to a world title in 2004 and then another in 2007. He’s no longer a relative unknown, and he heads to Chicago with many hoping he can be the savior the Cubs need to end a century-long title drought.

Never mind winning the club’s first World Series since 1908. If we give Epstein 10 years in Chicago, can he get the Cubs to their first World Series since 1945? Assistant Editors Mike Cole and Ricky Doyle will battle this one out in NESN Debates.

Cole: OK, Rick. We know what Theo Epstein is capable of when he’s put in a position to win. He came in to Boston, and within a couple of years, he was exorcising 86 years of demons with a fat 2004 World Series champions ring. Can he play Ghostbuster in Chicago? Since you’re younger, and I’m also better looking, I’ll defer to you for the first shot here. Have at it.

Doyle: I believe you mean “phat” –- with a p-h. Either way, thanks for bringing this question up, because it will allow me to have my response on record for when my prediction comes to fruition. While I hate buying into the hype, I can’t help but do so. Steve Bartman, get your arm loose, because within the next decade you’ll not only be able to come out of hiding, but you’ll be throwing out the first pitch at Wrigley Field — a la Bill Buckner at Fenway in ’08. There’s work to be done in Chi Town, and it’s going to be a difficult process, but: In Theo The Cubs (and I) Trust.

Cole: As a certain Boston sports radio personality would say, “You’re making my point.” There is work to be done in Chi Town –- and a lot of it. At this rate, Epstein has a better chance of fixing the economic mess this country is in than bringing the Cubs to the World Series. He inherited a team in 2004 that was already built. Sure, he put on some of the finishing touches (David Ortiz, Curt Schilling, Keith Foulke, Dave Roberts, Doug Mientkiewicz), but he doesn’t have that immediate luxury in Chicago. They haven’t won more than 83 games in the last three years. They have some real bad contracts. And their farm system isn’t necessarily anything to write home about.   

Doyle: Wow, those are some really nice “finishing touches.” Look back at that ’04 season once again and you’ll see how big of a role each of those guys played in bringing a title to Boston, particularly the first four. I’d argue Ortiz and Schilling might have even been the two most important players of that playoff run, and you couldn’t have asked for more from Foulke (one earned run in 14 innings in the playoffs). As far as the Cubs having some bad contracts, we might be overstating that a bit. Alfonso Soriano is signed through 2014, which is obviously tough, but Carlos Zambrano’s contract is up after next season. And it’s not like we haven’t seen the Red Sox put up some wins throughout Theo’s tenure while being plagued with some poor contracts.

Cole: Zambrano actually has a vesting player option according to Cots. If he finishes in the top four in Cy Young voting in 2012, it will kick in and he’ll make almost $20 million — so there’s that. But again, your response is right up my alley. You can’t argue the fact that the Sox didn’t win a playoff game from 2008 under Epstein. Now, that doesn’t take away from the World Series titles, but I do think it plays to a certain “inability” to gauge free agents and their potential impacts. The track record, particularly toward the end of his Boston tenure, doesn’t lie. Until he proves that he can buy the right talent, I’m not buying his chances of turning around a rather hapless franchise. 

Doyle: You have a better chance of seeing Cy Young himself pitch a game in 2012 than Zambrano finishing in the top four. And while I understand Theo made some lackluster free-agent signings throughout his tenure, particularly toward the end (although I’m not ready to write off Carl Crawford like a lot of people have already), I’m encouraged by what he’s going to bring to the table in terms of player development. And I think that’s just as big of an issue for the Cubs right now.

As you mentioned, their farm system isn’t anything to write home about, which is going to handcuff Theo from the start because he won’t be able to be as bold on the trading market as he was during his early years in Boston. But you can’t deny the success the Sox had in drafting players throughout Theo’s tenure. It included players that helped the Sox win a World Series and players that helped yield a solid return. I have no doubts that he can help do the same in Chicago.

In other words, I said he’ll help bring a World Series to Chicago within the next 10 years, not next year

Cole: Your point on the farm system is well-taken, but  don’t be too quick to write off the fact that there are a lot of scouts and the sorts that won’t be joining him on the North Side.

I still don’t think the Cubs will be in the World Series in the next decade. That said, I do think the Cubs will get better, and there definitely is plenty of room for improvement.

However, all bets are off if Theo is lucky enough to have a gift like this fall into his lap.

Doyle: You’re absolutely right about that. But I know one executive who will be joining him, Jed Hoyer. The same Jed Hoyer that worked alongside Theo for both World Series titles. And also the same Jed Hoyer that, along with Ben Cherington, helped land Josh Beckett and Mike Lowell — as you probably recall, two of the biggest components of that ’07 title.

So, yes, I agree there’s more that went into those two Sox titles than what immediately meets the eye. But given Theo and Jed’s reputation, and the fact that the Cubs do have ownership committed to fielding a winner (willing to spend cash, etc.), I feel like the wheels are finally in motion for some October glory for these Cubbies … with or without Henry Rowengartner and 700 innings from Chet Stedman.

Will Theo Epstein lead the Cubs to a World Series within 10 years?

Editor’s note: Each week, two members of NESN.com’s editorial staff will debate a topic via email in a feature called “Field Judges.” We’ll post the conversation and the ruling on NESN.com.

Niners coach Jim Harbaugh and Lions coach Jim Schwartz got into a little tussle after their game Sunday. Schwartz took offense when Harbaugh, in Captain Comeback’s words, “shook his hand too hard.”

This caused ESPN’s Tom Jackson to declare that coaches shouldn’t have to shake hands after games at all.

“Just give a little wave,” Jackson said. “If you’re friends, you’ll talk later. If you’re not friends, you won’t.”

Does the obligatory handshake illustrate sportsmanship, or is it a hollow show for fans? This week’s debate pits Senior Assistant Editor Mike Hurley against Patriots beat writer Jeff Howe.

Hurley: OK, so there’s mass hysteria this week due to two guys who have no business fighting getting into a little brouhaha at the end of a football game. Personally, I don’t think the showdown had anything to do with the required handshake so much as it did Jim Schwartz losing all control, but I’ll play the game.

The handshake at the 50-yard line was likely once a nice tradition. Now, it’s a charade. Will Bill Belichick shake Eric Mangini‘s hand?! Will it be sincere?! Will it be long?! How long?! How long?! Who cares? It’s become a silly, contrived event, with 20 photographers crowding around to get “the” shot of the handshake. Ironically, the chaos just ensures that all 20 photographers will get lousy shots of their “moment.”

What makes the handshake useless is that players and coaches interact with each other before the game, too. Just this morning, I saw a clip of Belichick and Rex Ryan sharing a laugh with each other before a game. Of course, their handshakes are considered cold and heartless, because one of the two inevitably just lost a division game.

There was also the clip in Bill Belichick: A Football Life that showed Belichick and former assistant Josh McDaniels agree to talk after the game, not on the field. The media blew their lack of handshake as some sign of hatred, but really, it was just Belichick hating the dog-and-pony show handshake.

The concept of two head coaches shaking hands is a good one, but its development into a moment that gets discussed, debated and dissected in the media for a week or longer has made it a complete sham.

Howe: So, because the media over-analyzes the postgame handshake, it should be outlawed? This is the new age of the NFL, a league that has become so popular that every little detail must be covered. Some of it, like the handshake in a lot of cases, seems a little much, but people eat it up. That’s why we’re debating its merits right now. The people who are sick of hearing about it already are still reading these very words right now.

The handshake is a symbol of sportsmanship and adds a human element to the postgame. Football is a passionate game, and the emotion is a conductor to rivalries. The handshake can add an element to that factor, too.

And who doesn’t love a good fight, even if it’s between two middle-aged men over a handshake? That was nothing compared to the ridiculousness that usually ensues when two grown men fight over a cougar in the Back Bay.

Hurley: That’s all well and good, but even Belichick is on my side. He said on WEEI on Monday that “it’s become something a lot different than what it was really intended to be or what it really is.”

To recap, that’s Belichick not saying “it is what is,” but actually saying “it’s not what it is.” If Bill’s on my side in a football argument, I’m feeling pretty good about my position.

Howe: It’s not like Belichick came rushing to your defense here.

All I’m saying is a spat between Harbaugh and Schwartz — which didn’t even draw a fine — shouldn’t cause the ban of postgame handshakes. Would we be having the same discussion if Brad Marchand slapped Daniel Sedin in the handshake line after the Stanley Cup?

Ruling

Tough to pick a winner out of such big losers, but here goes: Jeff’s point of sportsmanship and all that bull is too strong of an argument, even it means going against Bill Belichick. It also doesn’t hurt to toss in a line about Thelma (or Louise?) getting slapped around by Marchand.

I say keep the handshakes going and hope for more postgame spats during them -– what better way to cap off an emotional game than Jim-on-Jim violence (broken up by Ron Jeremy? Seriously, who was that guy?!) or, going back a few years, Belichick and Mangenius being forced to touch each other.

Sure, it’s not necessary, but if it doesn’t serve as a sign of good sportsmanship, it sure offers some top-notch entertainment whether it’s coaches fighting, camera men shoving or nothing more than an awkward hug.

Editor's note: Each week, NESN.com's editorial staff will debate a topic via email in a feature called "Field Judges." We'll post the conversation and the ruling on NESN.com.

Ben Watanabe, Assistant Editor, 11:18 a.m., Monday:

The healing process from September's Red Sox swoon began last Thursday with the Bruins raising their championship banner to the rafters. A few years ago, the Bruins were probably a solid fourth in Boston's hierarchy of sports teams. Considering the Red Sox' fall from grace, the Celtics possibly not having a season and the Patriots' worrisome issues on defense, has the hierarchy changed since the Bruins won the 2011 Stanley Cup?

So far, these debates have been too civil for my liking. Let's work some personal attacks into this week's debate. The winning side is whoever forces the other side to shed the most tears.

Michael Hurley, Senior Assistant Editor, 1:22 p.m., Monday:

Well I'll start this off, Ben, by telling you that you're a horrible person. Hope that suits your needs.

The Bruins are undeniably the hottest ticket in Boston right now. Just a few years ago, Bruins fans were mocked for buying season tickets for the B's, who looked to be decades away from ever being competitive again. Needless to say, those fans who stuck it out have been rewarded. They've essentially gone from being the nerd table in the cafeteria to the cool kids table, just by being themselves. The aforementioned lack of a basketball season and the disappointing Red Sox season certainly gives the B's top billing in Boston.

You'll note, though, that the Patriots don't play in Boston. They play in Foxboro, and they own the entire region.

It's really not a fair fight to try to compare any of the other sports to the NFL franchise in town. The league itself is a behemoth, and the 16-game schedule leads to monster ratings and a weeklong news cycle that never runs dry. No matter how suspect the defense is, the Patriots will continue to be king in this area so long as Tom Brady is lining up under center every week.

You did see in 2008 what happened when he's not there, and the bandwagon certainly had a lot more elbow room. Interest was down, fan morale was down, and you could actually buy tickets to games. Three years later, they're back where they've been for the better part of the last decade.

The Bruins have done all they could to become top team in town, but they're still No. 2 on the hierarchy.

Ricky Doyle, Assistant Editor, 7:19 p.m., Monday:

Wow, so by that response, you’re putting the Sox as the No. 3 team in terms of Boston's sports hierarchy. I assume No. 3 because, going off your cafeteria comparison from earlier, the Celtics are the Steven Glansbergs of this debate.

Anyway, I couldn't disagree more. The Sox may have suffered perhaps the worst end-of-the-season collapse in MLB history, but the aftermath just goes to show where they lie in the hearts of most Bostonians. Leading up to the regular-season finale, it was as if the sky was falling in Boston, and I can't imagine any of the other four local teams generating a response of that magnitude –- especially when it comes to simply getting into the playoffs.

The B's are certainly a hot ticket at the moment and have a very passionate fan base. But there are also a lot of fans  that have gained interest based on the team's Stanley Cup success. As you mentioned, a few years ago, Bruins fans were typically mocked for buying season tickets.With the Sox, however, there's never really been that complete disregard. If they lose, fans are ticked off. If they win, fans are thrilled. But there rarely comes a point when Boston sports fans stop caring about the Sox altogether. In the wake of their collapse, which was embarrassing, fans are anxiously seeking answers rather than writing them off, which I think just validates their No. 1 standing.

Ben Watanabe, Assistant Editor, 4:11 p.m., Tuesday:

I don’t know about the Celtics being Boston's Steven Glansburg, but Hurley is definitely the Steven Glansburg of NESN. Poor guy.

I'd never seen anything like the change this area went through when the Patriots won the Super Bowl. It was incredible. Suddenly, everyone was happier. I was convinced the Pats had been the sleeper among our teams the whole time. Then the Red Sox won and not only was everyone happy, but it was like they could die happy. And I don't mean years or decades from now. I mean they seemed like they could die right then and be cool with it.

As much emotion as there was in the Bruins' Stanley Cup victory, I didn't see the joy being as widespread. The chunk of fans who had suffered with this team for years was much smaller than the group that had lived and died with the Sox and Pats. I still give the Red Sox the championship belt, but the Bruins might be to Boston what Roy Jones Jr. was to boxing in the late 1990s: The undisputed best, pound for pound. Y'all musta forgot.

John Beattie, Associate Editor, 9:04 a.m., Wednesday:

The B's are the talk of the town and there's no turning back. But how long will this fad last?

I hate to admit it, but as long as Brady is under center and Welker is threading through secondaries and Belichick is rocking Pat the Patriot on his sleeveless hoodie, it's all Pats, all the time.

Yes, I know they were red-headed stepchildren until Drew Bledsoe, but there's no turning back now that Kraftville has been erected. The B's always had and always will have the most devoted hard-core fans, but excitement of the pink hats that joined this past summer — yes, the pink hats: the group that makes and breaks a team's "hotness" in this city — will surely die down if and when the B's slow down.

As for the Pats? They'll always be top banana, no matter what their record is. Why? Tailgates are too fun, Sunday Fundays will never die and football players will always be the prom kings.

RULING

This looks like a hung jury. Two votes for the Red Sox and two for the Patriots. If only we could have had Jack Nicholson on the witness stand yelling "You can't handle the truth!" at Mike and John, maybe we could've swayed the argument.

We may disagree on whether the Sox or Pats are No. 1 in the fans' hearts, but it looks like we all agree that even with their success last season, the Bruins still have a long way to go to claim the top spot.

Sorry, B's. You're still No. 2 at best.

Editor’s note: Each week, NESN.com’s editorial staff will debate a topic via email in a feature called “Field Judges.” We’ll post the conversation and the ruling on NESN.com.

Ricky Doyle, Assistant Editor, Monday, 10:54 p.m.:

When the Bruins raise their 2011 championship banner to the rafters Thursday night at TD Garden, it will mean the team’s Stanley Cup defense is officially under way. Most of last season’s squad will be returning this season, which means the word “repeat” will be tossed around, well, repeatedly.

But championship repeats are a rarity in sports because so much has to go right during each and every season in order to capture one title, never mind multiple in a row. Each sport presents its own sets of obstacles, making title runs different for each.

So I pose this difficult question to you all: In which sport is it toughest to repeat as champions?

Mike Cole, Assistant Editor, Monday, 11:24 p.m.:

They’re all tough. If repeating was easy, it would happen more often. Of course, I can’t use just that as a response, can I?

I’m leaning toward either hockey or football, and much of my reasoning stems from the physicality of both.

If I had to choose one, though, I’d probably go with hockey. It’s just so darn tough to win 16 games when things matter most. You play your 82-game schedule, and then you’re saddled with playing roughly 22-28 more games to win it all. It’s crazy.

If you lose one guy to injury (a real possibility due to the nature of the sport and the tournament), you’re done. One bounce of the puck can change the playoffs. Run into a hot goalie, and see you later.

There are so many factors that go into it, and that’s all on-ice matters. That’s not even considering how teams can run into salary cap problems after winning it all, much like the Blackhawks did last season.

Plus, you gotta wear a beard for, like a month and a half, and that gets itchy.

John Beattie, Associate Editor, Tuesday, 4:05 p.m.:

Well, it’s not hoops.

I’d have to say football.

When it comes to most successful playoff runs, most teams ride hot players. But how does one stay hot in football? They don’t, really.

Also, there are just too many things that could go wrong throughout training camp, 17 weeks of hard-fought, successful regular-season football and an added month of playoff football in the dead of winter. The injuries stack up, players lose focus, and opponents pick up on gameplans and zero in on everything you’ve been doing right all season.

Unlike most sports, if you lose one key player (I’m looking at you, Indy), your team is likely pushed back at least an entire season.

If a hockey team were to lose its starting goalie, for example, there is a backup ready to step up without having to learn the playbook and have teammates get acclimated to his style. If it loses its top center, there are 20-plus guys there to step up and a coach that has plenty of other options and ways to go about winning games.

If a baseball team loses its ace, it’s losing a guy who pitches once every five days — if that. If a football team loses its quarterback, it’s up the creek without a paddle.

Plus, it’s one-and-done in the NFL — there’s no Cowboy Up-ing after losing your first three games in a conference championship. If the best team in the league has an off-game when meeting an average team that has a good gameplan, it’s all over.

Football is, by far, the toughest to repeat.

Ben Watanabe, Assistant Editor, Tuesday, 4:13 p.m.:

As we’re all about to learn, winning consecutive titles is toughest in hockey. Every sport has aspects that are beyond the players’ control, but it’s different in hockey. The same group of players could play 10 seasons together against the same competition and come out with 10 different results. The debacle against the Flyers in 2010 and the run in 2011 are perfect examples.

If you’ve ever talked hockey with me for more than two minutes, you know how important I believe momentum is in hockey. To me, it’s more important in hockey than in any other sport. So often, one line or one goalie gets hot in April and ends up carrying a team to a title. It’s tough to capture that lightning in a bottle two years in a row.

Jeff Howe, NESN.com Patriots reporter, Tuesday, 5:02 p.m.:

I don’t think there’s a correct answer with this one, but I’ll bring up some important points.

First, I’ll eliminate the NBA because teams repeat a lot, especially when they’ve got the best player in the game. It also seams to be easier to turn it on in time for the playoffs in the NBA.

While no one has repeated in baseball over the last decade, I feel like the absence of a salary cap permits a more welcoming formula to build an elite roster if the front office spends the money wisely after thoroughly scouting talent and personalities. Of course, that theory doesn’t hold a lot of water with the Yankees of the early 2000s and the Red Sox of 2011, but both organizations had a better chance to field a champion than three-quarters of Major League Baseball.

That leaves the NFL and NHL, the only two leagues with a hard salary cap and the only two sports where raw passion and energy can be more vital to success than talent. Teams falter when they don’t bring it mentally and physically, which has bred a mixed bag of success for each league’s two finalists the following season.

I think complacency can be a much greater issue in the NHL than the NFL, so I want to lean toward hockey for this debate. But the NFL’s injury bug is something I just can’t shake.

Avoiding severe, season-ending injuries is largely about luck, and the NFLPA has said 20 percent of the league winds up on injured reserve each season. While the Packers suffered a rash of injuries in 2010, including during the Super Bowl, they wouldn’t have gotten anywhere if Aaron Rodgers went down. Quarterback Drew Brees dealt with a knee issue in 2010, and combined with a level of Saints complacency, that organization couldn’t repeat. And the 2008 Patriots and 2011 Colts didn’t (and don’t) have a chance to win a Super Bowl without Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, respectively.

So yeah, the NFL guy will go with the NFL. I’ll color you shocked.

Ricky Doyle, Tuesday, 8:12 p.m.:

I’m going to have to go with hockey and my reasoning is quite simple: I believe hockey is the most difficult sport in which to win a championship. Therefore, winning two championships back-to-back is also the most difficult — nearly impossible.

The grind of an NHL postseason is absolutely insane. I mean, think about it. The Bruins played 25 games during this past postseason, and that’s including an under-handed toss in the form of a four-game sweep of the Flyers. I’m no mathematician, but if my math is correct (I carried the right amount of one’s, and such), that means the B’s played over 30 percent of a typical regular season after the actual regular season ended. Considering the physical grind that hockey demands, it’s a wonder the B’s had the energy to party like they did upon winning the Cup.

I can understand where Beattie comes from with the one-loss-and-you’re-out theory for football. But I also think that makes it much easier to repeat as champions because it could also be looked at as a one-win-and-you-advance theory. The three other sports demand that you bring your best game for an entire series, and I think that no sport commands more out of a single series or postseason than hockey.

Plus, if you win the Cup, you’re automatically at a disadvantage for the following season because of such a shortened offseason. That can be said for all sports, but a Stanley Cup run can cut two-plus months off a team’s typical offseason, therefore making a Cup victory even more difficult. Just ask the Bruins, as they were barely off the Duck Boats before training camp started back up.

Also, going off Ben’s point about momentum in hockey. While momentum might carry a great deal of weight within a game, I think it’s a bit overrated when looked at game-to-game, as is home-ice advantage. The Bruins proved that multiple times this past postseason. I think that, though, also adds to the degree of difficulty.

And, yes, beards do get itchy. I’m sure my baby face will find out some day.

Michael Hurley, Senior Assistant Editor, Tuesday, 9:57 p.m.:

Ricky just made about every point I wanted to, and he even got his math right, which I wouldn’t have done.

What it comes down to, like he said, is that it’s almost impossible to win one championship in hockey. No other sport has the playoff grind of the NHL. Each and every game in the playoffs is the most intense game of every player’s life. Then the next night, it happens all over again. And again. And again.

Just look at last year. If the puck doesn’t hit a Canadiens defenseman, or if Tim Thomas doesn’t make that insane save on Brian Gionta in double overtime, or if Tyler Seguin doesn’t turn into Wayne Gretzky for one night against Tampa, and so on and so forth, the Bruins don’t win the Cup. It requires a lot of grit to win a Cup, but it requires an equal amount of luck.

The NFL, though, isn’t far behind. One blown assignment, one tipped pass or one gust of wind could alter a team’s fate in a split-second. The Patriots’ accomplishment earlier this decade was absolutely remarkable, and it will be just as impressive when Green Bay does it again in February (control yourself, Mr. Cole).

Douglas Flynn, NESN.com Bruins reporter, Tuesday, 11:19 p.m.:

I’ll admit I’m a bit biased on this subject, but I really don’t think this should be much of a debate.

Having seen firsthand what it took for the Bruins to win the Cup this past spring, I find it hard to fathom how a team can survive that gauntlet two years in a row.

That may be bad news for the Bruins, though they are better positioned than most recent champs, as they have almost everyone back and no salary cap issues. Still, they played an extra 25 grueling games that took an immense physical and mental toll just to win the first championship. Asking them to do that again after a short offseason and another 82-game regular-season slate might, with everyone in the league gunning for them, be too much. It certainly has been for every other champion since 1998.

Hockey’s postseason is like no other in sport. It’s what makes the Stanley Cup playoffs so enthralling to watch, and the chance to hoist that silver chalice the most treasured experience in sports.

Major League Baseball and the NBA don’t even belong in this discussion. Winning the World Series or an NBA title are great accomplishments, but they pale in comparison to the Stanley Cup and Super Bowl.

The NFL does at least offer physical punishment similar to the grind of the NHL. And the one-and-done nature of the NFL playoffs do add an element of risk that a better team could lose under fluke circumstances. But as has been noted, the one-and-done format also means a champion can be crowned with as few as three wins, with at least a week between each game, and even more time to recuperate if a team has a bye in the opening week and with an extra week between the conference championships and the Super Bowl.

The NHL, by comparison, features games every other day from the middle of April to late June. No other sport can compare to that grind. Coupled with the parity imposed by the salary cap, and it’s easy to see why the Stanley Cup keeps changing hands every year.

Ben Watanabe, Wednesday, 8:24 a.m.:
I agree with Doug that hockey is the toughest, but let’s not get carried away.

“Major League Baseball and the NBA don’t even belong in this discussion. Winning the World Series or an NBA title are great accomplishments, but they pale in comparison to the Stanley Cup and Super Bowl.”

And…

“The NHL…features games every other day from the middle of April to late June. No other sport can compare to that grind.”

The NBA playoffs features exactly the same type of playoff format as the NHL, and it’s just as much a grind. Baseball is just as grueling — want to ask the Rays if the last month and five days have been rough on the psyche?

This isn’t an argument over which sport is the toughest to win a championship in -– I-d argue they-re all about the same -– but which one is toughest to repeat. There are equal chances to let it slip away in every sport, but in hockey, so many of those chances are based on factors beyond the players’ control that it’s hard to see all those bounces going a team’s way two straight years.

Michael Ryder will not be in position to make that save this season. Tim Thomas probably won’t be in a zone like that again in his career. It’s unlikely the Bruins will get as many surprise contributions from rookies like Tyler Seguin and Brad Marchand in the future.

Ricky Doyle, Wednesday, 5:54 p.m.:

For the record, are we talking about the same NBA in which most teams neglect to play defense these days?

Michael Hurley, Wednesday, literally seconds later:

What is the NBA?

Ricky Doyle, Wednesday, seconds after that:

Do they still use a red, white and blue ball?

RULING

While it’s obviously difficult to win a championship in any sport and even more difficult to repeat as champions, the physical grind of football and hockey are grueling. Therefore, it’s more difficult to repeat as champions in the NFL and NHL than in the MLB or NBA.

But as physically demanding as the NFL is, the idea of having to win four playoff series that could potentially go as many as seven games each — while also playing a physical game — is crazy. Players are put to the test mentally and physically throughout an NHL postseason, making winning one championship incredible and winning two in a row nearly impossible.

In other words, the Bruins have their work cut out for them. And it all starts Thursday night.

Editor's note: Each week, NESN.com's editorial staff will debate a topic via email in a feature called "Field Judges." We'll post the conversation and the ruling on NESN.com.

This week's question: Should the Patriots cut Chad Ochocinco?

Michael Hurley, Senior Assistant Editor, Monday, 1:45 p.m.

Hi friends,

It's everyone's favorite time of the week — that time when you all lose a debate to me.

Fortunately for all of you, I will take a step back as we begin this week's conversation, which will center around a certain wideout by the name of Chad Javon Johnson, more commonly known these days as Ochocinco.

He came to New England with plenty of fanfare, but he's been a bit player through three games. He has five catches for 87 yards, which averages out to 1.7 catches and 29 yards per game. He's tied for 147th in the league in catches and 106th in receiving yards. That may not be a big deal if it weren't for Ochocinco's celebrity status. He's caused quite a stir just by being himself thus far, with the Tedy Bruschi fiasco consuming a week's worth of Patriots coverage.

He also was singled out for his poor play on Sunday, when a lazy route resulted in an interception and when a surefire touchdown was simply dropped. It was an ugly game for a guy who can ill afford such afternoons.

So what should they do with the guy? Should they keep him around and hope he picks it up at some point, or should they cut him as soon as possible to open the door for either a younger option on the roster or a veteran free agent (who may or may not have dressed as SpongeBob SquarePants for Halloween in 2009)?

Let's hear what you all have to say.

John Beattie, Associate Editor, 1:57 p.m., Monday

Keep him around. He can serve as a decoy and snag two to four catches per game, being an important part of wins without racking up the points or being splattered throughout a box score. Despite disproving this theory on Sunday, he's their best deep threat and can open up the field once he catches on with TB12.

Ben Watanabe, Assistant Editor, 2:08 p.m., Monday

I say cut him, just to bring back the good ol' days when a guy would blow an assignment on kickoff coverage and Bill Parcells would cut him before they boarded the bus after the game. I'm pretty sure that was the only reason Troy Brown made the team initially, because Parcells cut the 19 guys ahead of him on the depth chart.

Michael Hurley, 4:03 p.m., Tuesday

I give him about two more games to prove he can contribute. Remember, he wasn't exactly an impact player last year in Cincinnati (67 catches, 831 yards, four touchdowns) and he was outshined by Terrell Owens, who is pushing 40 and isn't even in the league right now.

Of course, Deion Branch had zero catches on Sunday, and nobody's calling for him to be cut (rightfully so), so it's important to keep in mind the small sample size. But when you watch the game, Ochocinco looks to be a step behind in terms of knowing what play Tom Brady is calling and what route he should be running. He's had a few marginally big catches, and he's better than some of the younger options (at least we think so), so I'm willing to give him a few more weeks to prove he can play.

If he proves expendable, particularly upon Aaron Hernandez's return, then there's no harm in cutting him, maybe around the bye week.

Ben Watanabe, 4:08 p.m., Tuesday

We might be quibbling about semantics here, but I disagree that 67 catches for 831 yards doesn't make Ochocinco an "impact" player. He might not have been a high-impact player, but 27th in the NFL in receiving isn't poor. Seventy catches/800 yards is a more than respectable season for a wideout, and Ochocinco was right around that.

Michael Hurley, 4:28 p.m., Tuesday

Yes, semantics. Being "respectable" isn't flashy, and Ochocinco's a flashy guy. The persona leads you to expect bigger things from him. Think 38-year-old Deion Sanders playing for the Ravens. Only add a Twitter account and a Prius. And a reality show, and a bull-riding career, and a brief soccer career, and a Dancing With The Stars history. You get the point.

Jeff Howe, Patriots reporter, 4:28 p.m., Tuesday

Chad Ochocinco is far too talented, works far too diligently and has too high of a football aptitude to completely flop in New England. It's been ugly so far, for sure, and he hasn't had a long leash with the coaching staff, which they showed with a limited amount of snaps in Weeks 1 and 2.

They don't need him to perform at a high level just yet. Obviously, the Patriots acquired him with the thinking that he'd have it down in time for Week 1, but in reality, they just need him to be a useful part of the offense by the time they take on some elite defenses in games that really count. If the Patriots stay relatively healthy, Wes Welker, Rob Gronkowski, Hernandez and Branch are all better receiving options than Ochocinco. If more players start dropping, though, Ochocinco will need to step it up at a much quicker pace.

Ochocinco's roster spot should be perfectly secure throughout the 2011 season unless something wild happens and he becomes a distraction in the locker room. At this point, he hasn't shown any signs of that being a remote possibility.

And Randy Moss is not a better option. He might help someone's fantasy team more than Ochocinco, but Moss isn't the right guy for the efficiency of the offense or the makeup of the locker room. I think my feelings on Moss and the Patriots have been well-documented.

Ricky Doyle, Assistant Editor, 5:11 p.m., Tuesday

While I understand Ochocinco hasn't exactly lived up to the expectations that accompanied him when he first arrived in New England, I still feel like the idea of cutting him is simply a knee-jerk reaction.

First of all, I think expectations were too high to begin with. You can't really blame people for expecting Ochocinco to put up big numbers in his first season after watching Moss completely rejuvenate his career upon his arrival in 2007, but it's really an apple to oranges comparison. With that said, I expect his production to soon rise if Bill Belichick continues to slowly integrate him into the offense.

Ochocinco has looked a bit off when it comes to his route running, but I think that's something that's correctable. I also agree that three games is far too small of a sample size, especially when you consider it was a shortened offseason to begin with because of the lockout.

Ochocinco has been targeted only nine times in his three games. There's no doubt in my mind that those targets will increase before long, which will ultimately be reflected in his statistical output. As the Patriots' other threats — of which there are plenty — continue to produce at a high level, it should open up the field for Ochocinco to make plays in the long run. He's always had big-play capability and I don't think that's something that's just disappeared over night.

Also, had Ochocinco caught that over-the-shoulder touchdown pass on Sunday — which I would venture to say he does nine times out of 10 — I don't think his minimal production would be under as much scrutiny as currently it is. His numbers would certainly look better, and I don't think as many skeptics would be calling for his dismissal.

So, in short, everyone cool your Jets — and I ain't talkin' 'bout them boys from New York.

Mike Cole, Assistant Editor, 11:11 p.m., Tuesday

For a team that relies so heavily on the passing game, I don't think it would make too much sense for the Patriots to move on from the artist formerly known as Chad Johnson — at least not yet. We've already seen Hernandez go down. With all of those receptions going around, it's inevitable there will be injuries. It really can't hurt to have a veteran around to help shoulder the load.

Like I think both Hurley and Jeff touched on, if something comes up that makes the Patriots rethink Ochocinco's place on that team, then you revisit it then. For now, though, he isn't necessarily hurting your team, even if he's not giving you a ton.

I do think, however, it would be awesome if the Pats cut him after the season, and then re-sign him before training camp starts. Then, maybe Ochocinco will be in the need of another new roommate. Considering my lease runs through August and my roommates probably think I'm a slob, I may be in the market for a new roomie. I love video games, so Chad and I could be a natural fit.

Are those jokes old yet? I hope not.

Michael Hurley, 9:40 a.m., Wednesday

The defense of Chad is overwhelming, with some of you coming across as rational beings and others bordering on "Leave Britney alone!" status. In any case, it's time for Judge Hurley's ruling (I've always wanted to A, refer to myself as a judge, and B, use the third person).

RULING

It's clear that everyone in this debate is willing to give Ochocinco a little slack. Well, everyone except Ben, who just wants the zany days of Bill Parcells back. We all want those days back — just imagine, given what Parcells used to say about Terry Glenn, what he would say about Ochocinco.

As for everyone else, it seems as though Ochocinco should be afforded a full season to prove his value, which he's yet to do through three games.

Oh, and the final ruling, Mike Cole, is that yes, those jokes are far, far too old.

This week's question: How should Major League Baseball use instant replay?

Ricky Doyle, Assistant Editor, 9:29 p.m., Monday:

Hello all,

It's time for me to use this marvelous technology known as e-mail to ask for your two cents as part of this week's "Field Judges." We've already weighed in on Tiger Woods' transgressions, whether we we'd prefer if Cam Newton sinks or swims and called certain Little Leaguers "losers" (I'm looking at you, Mr. Hurley). But this week, I think it's time we return to Major League Baseball action and discuss an area that was the subject of much debate before it was eventually implemented at the tail end of the 2008 season: the use of instant replay.

I think this is a perfect time to debate how exactly it should be used in baseball in the wake of the incident at Fenway on Monday afternoon. David Ortiz hit a rocket down the right-field line that appeared to be fair but was called foul by umpires. Under the current replay rules, the play wasn't reviewable and the foul call was upheld after the umpires came together to discuss it. Given how quirky some parts of Fenway are, it's understandable that an ump can miss a call from time to time, begging the question as to whether replay should be expanded. Currently, only boundary home runs calls can be reviewed.

So I pose this head-scratcher to you: How should Major League Baseball use instant replay?

Ponder it. Walk away. Ponder it some more. I'll be anxiously awaiting your responses.

Nick Koop, Intern, 9:46 p.m., Monday:

Make it like football : two challenges for each manager per game. Heck, maybe even just one challenge per game. Baseball games take up enough time as it is, so any form of expanded replay that doesn't extend the length of the game is ideal. While I'm all for getting calls right, baseball games should not take longer than they currently do. I can't think of something better than allowing coach's challenges.

They could be used on out/safe calls, fair/foul calls, catch/no catch and home runs. They would obviously not be allowed to be used on balls and strikes.

There are definitely some kinks to work out, though. For instance, in the case of Ortiz, if the play ends up being overturned, do you send Ortiz to second automatically? What happens if there's a runner on first and he was going to try and score? Do you make him stop at third?

In this instance, it seems like it'd be best to treat it like a ground-rule double. But not every fair/foul call would be this easy to judge (presumably). Other than that, reviewing force plays and tags should be pretty straightforward.

Having the ability to challenge also eliminates (theoretically) the need for managers to argue with umps. Got a problem with the call? Challenge it.

Ben Watanabe, Assistant Editor, 8:04 a.m., Tuesday:

While the NFL deserves credit for being the most proactive professional league in implementing instant replay, its challenge system is idiotic. Basically, the NFL's logic is, "We want to get the call right, provided the coach has saved up his challenges and provided the refs didn't blow so many calls earlier in the game that the coach had to use up all his challenges in the third quarter."

Borderline home runs, borderline foul/fair balls and close outs on the bases should be reviewable. I don't want to see a computerized strike zone or managers throwing challenge flags because they think the umpires missed a balk.

Michael Hurley, Senior Assistant Editor, 8:34 a.m., Tuesday:

If MLB does institute expanded replay, it can be so simple that a casual fan might not even notice it. You just have one guy up in the press box with access to replay technology. Give the managers a challenge or two per game, and the ump points up to the press box. That replay official then watches the replay and gives the signal (either with his hands or through some sort of communication with the on-field umpire, doesn't matter), and the game goes on. The whole process could take 15-20 seconds.

The way they do it now, where three umpires jog off the field and cram into the dugout tunnel to watch footage that obviously shows a home run is just stupid. The Benny Hill theme should be played whenever they make their little scamper off the field. Does it require three sets of eyes to see in slow-motion and high definition that a ball went over a wall or didn't go over a wall?

As for the issue of where to send the runners, etc., the game is already chock full of silly rules where an umpire has to make such a call, so adding replay wouldn't be all that different.

Just make sure you don't give the managers any challenge flags, because A, that would be foolish and unnecessary, and B, I wouldn't trust Ozzie Guillen to not go headhunting.

John Beattie, Associate Editor, 8:52 a.m., Tuesday:

I couldn't agree with Mike Hurley more. With today's technology, there's no reason why this process shouldn't be used and should take any more than 20 seconds if used. Give the umps unlimited challenge opportunities and offer teams one challenge request per game.

Furthermore -– and this is easier said than done — instruct umpires to be more aggressive with borderline fair/foul and home run calls, leaning heavily toward making calls that result in allowing the play to continue. For example, instruct umps toward making calls that benefit the offense, such as the "blown call" on David Ortiz's Scotts Lawn Care sign on Monday afternoon.

Call that balls fair, let it play out, then review. Better to let the Big Fella chug around to second (or third even) and then go upstairs to review and fix any potential mistake than to call it foul, kill the play and have a big "oops" moment after which you can't fix it.

Erik Frenz, Intern, 8:56 a.m., Tuesday:

There's no reason not to implement instant replay on a wider scale. Everyone sitting at home watching Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game knew that he finished the job except for the only guy that mattered — the ump who made the call. It would have taken a total of 20 seconds worth of replay to fix that call.

The only problem, and potential argument against instant replay is that baseball games take so long as it is. So, the solution is simple: implement instant replay and one or two other rules that will help the pace of the game.

There are at least a couple of ways to make the games take significantly less time. Limit the number of times a catcher can go to the mound or set a time limit between pitches (though Jonathan Papelbon might be more than a little upset). Either would allow for further use of instant replay without making a game take four hours.

Ben Watanabe, 9:27 a.m., Tuesday:

I wonder if we'd all be so pro-replay if we'd posed this question before the Red Sox were hosed out of a pivotal run on Monday? Hmmm…

Beattie's right about erring on the side of letting the situation play out, then reviewing. They already do this in the NFL (There's way too much NFL praising going on right now for my tastes).

Mike Hurley, 9:34 a.m., Tuesday:

The NFL definitely shouldn't be seen as the model. Its system is as flawed as any. A replay on every scoring play? It's brutal. How about the delay of several minutes during the Patriots game on Sunday as the referee pored over the replay of an extra point?! An extra point! The NFL is lucky that we are all so obsessed with its product, because the replay system is killing us slowly.

And when you look at the NBA's, I don't even know how that system got passed. If you hit a 3, and the game continues on for another few minutes before a commercial break, the referees can go back in time with video review and change your 3-pointer to a 2-pointer. Then the score changes, and your team loses a point, even though you've been playing for several minutes under the assumption that the score was different than it actually was. It's like The Butterfly Effect or Inception or The Adjustment Bureau or some other crazy movie that's hard to follow. That's just not a good system.

So I'll use this as a rare opportunity to heap some praise on the NHL. Yes, in this one, rare instance, the NHL can say it offers a superior solution than any of its pro counterparts. Goal reviews are thorough and have a near-100 percent accuracy rate. And that's whether the call is made within the building or if it goes to the league office in Toronto (My dream job, by the way, is sitting in front of 12 TVs in Toronto, mowing down doughnuts all night and telling someone on the phone whether a puck crossed a line. Call me, Gary!). It's quick, it's painless and it's done by someone whose only job is to look at replays for a living. Let's eliminate the on-field official from the equation, and it speeds everything up.

That right there is probably the nicest paragraph I've ever written about a league that constantly messes everything up, so you know that's a pretty serious recommendation.

Ben Watanabe, 9:43 a.m., Tuesday:

Speaking of movies that are hard to follow, has anyone seen Sucker Punch? It's a hallucination inside a hallucination, and the result is an absolutely terrible movie. On the hierarchy of instant replay systems as time-travel/reality-bending movies, MLB is Sucker Punch, NBA is The Butterfly Effect, NFL is Back to the Future (If it were to come out now, you'd say it was completely ridiculous, but it's an original and a classic and it's influenced all the other ones that have come out since).

Ricky Doyle, 12:30 a.m., Wednesday:

Ah, the cinema: America's ongoing love affair with the motion picture (Arthur Spooner, King of Queens). Well, considering I typically don't see movies until about 10 years after their release (Think TBS' "Movies, For Guys Who Like Movies"), some of these references are falling on deaf ears — the exception, of course, being Back to the Future.

But what's not falling on deaf ears is this talk of instant replays. And it's become abundantly clear to me that no one is a fan of the "human element," which was so widely discussed prior to the first implementation of replay in baseball. I'm typically a believer that if the technology is there to get a call right, then utilize it. At the same time, though, I can't foresee extending instant replay in baseball too much beyond its current state because there are simply too many bang-bang plays over the course of a game. If replay were extended to be considered for all close plays, picking and choosing which particular plays to review (in one way or another) would likely create a debacle in and of itself.

In a Time Magazine article in June 2010 after Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game, Paul Hawkins, the British artificial intelligence Ph.D. who founded the Hawk-Eye replay system, which has been used to determine ins and outs calls in tennis, discussed the possibility of using the system in baseball.

"With the right technology, any dispute can be resolved definitively, accurately and immediately," he said.

In other words, the technology is there (not just in the form of traditional replays, but also in the form of ball-tracking systems) to get virtually every call right over the course of a game. But I think most would agree that strictly the use of computers would create its own set off problems, one of which would be taking away any sense of flow — which is already a major turn-off for some fans when it comes to baseball.

So, really I think it comes down to which plays you think are simply too important to leave solely in the hands of the on-field umpires. It's weird to say one play is more important than another in baseball, a game that relies so heavily on numbers and matchups, but Major League Baseball ultimately decided that home runs were the most worthy of review. I tend to agree, but I'd also consider fair/foul reviews, although none of which should involve coach's challenges.

I think anything beyond that (safe/out calls, balls/strikes, etc.) would slow the game to the point where it would make the Slowskys look like Usain Bolt and, therefore, should remain untouched when it comes to the use of replay.

Mike Cole, Assistant Editor, 6:12 p.m., Wednesday:

Has anyone watched the last couple of games? Doyle and I have been in the office for both marathon monstrosities, and I have to say that I'm incredibly skeptical about anything that would add more gametime to a baseball game. We were approaching four hours each night, and the product was barely watchable. So you definitely have to make sure you use replay in the most efficient way as to not add on even more game time.

However, if a game is going to last four hours, what's a few more minutes to make sure you get things right? As long as protocol doesn't require Joe West isn't doesn't have to go out to the Bleacher Bar to sit down, have a beer and review the play, I'm cool with just about everything at this point.

RULING

While the length of Major League Baseball games is always an issue, there appears to be no reason why the league can't implement a form of expanded replay that not only allows for the correct calls to be made, but also allows them to be made in a timely manner. If there were to be someone designated specifically for replays, the system could be expanded to fair/foul calls at the least — which is probably as far as the system should expand. In questionable situations, it would be wise for the umpire to let a play unfold before signaling to the designated replay person for a review of the play. Such a system would eliminate much of the on-field confusion (arguments, umpires going down into the clubhouse for reviews, etc.).

In other words, if the technology's there, use it and get the call right…Oh yeah, and steer clear of movies that are hard to follow. They'll only make your head spin.

Editor’s note: Each week, NESN.com’s editorial staff will debate a topic via email in a feature called “Field Judges.” We’ll post the conversation and the ruling on NESN.com.

With Week 1 of the NFL season in the books, the “Field Judges” debate topic this week centers on the league’s most polarizing new face: Panthers quarterback Cam Newton.

Ben Watanabe, Assistant Editor, 10:44 a.m., Monday:

Killa Cam became controversial last year at Auburn when an NCAA investigation found that his father had solicited cash payments from Mississippi State while Newton was being recruited. (Newton and Auburn were never implicated for any wrongdoing.) When added to the alleged laptop-stealing incident in 2008 that caused Newton to get kicked out of the University of Florida, the pay-to-play controversy cemented Newton as a bad egg in some fans’ minds. Many rooted for Oregon in last January’s BCS title game just hoping to see Newton fail.

After Newton’s surprising debut Sunday in which he broke an NFL record with 422 passing yards, the most for any rookie quarterback in his first game, are you rooting for Newton to be successful in the NFL?

John Beattie, Associate Editor, 11:38 a.m., Monday:

I hope Cammer Time succeeds because I’m a fan of good football.

I could care less about where half of these people come from or what they do on their free time — I watch the sport to be entertained and if this young quarterback can make the NFL that more enjoyable, than why not root for him?

After getting 10 combined wins over that last two seasons, Carolina sure could use a break. It’s great seeing bad teams get better and its even better seeing a weekend of blowout-free football. Whats better than an afternoon of football? How about an afternoon of evenly matched teams slugging it out in thrilling battles?

Jashvina Shah, Intern, 12:17 p.m. Monday:

I’m definitely rooting for him to do well. He’s a good quarterback and there’s no proof that he was actually involved with it the money scandal. We just know that his dad was. Even if Newton was involved, violating a rule like that doesn’t take away anything from his ability to play. I keep thinking of Michael Vick. He ran a dog-fighting ring, which is considerably worse than soliciting payments from a school. Vick did his time and now a lot of fans have forgiven him and he’s been tearing up the field for the Eagles. Let’s play devil’s advocate for a second and say he did steal a laptop. While that probably sticks him on a naughty list, it’s not the worst violation ever, either.

Maybe there are some jaded fans still shaking their heads at Newton, but give it a while, maybe a few weeks to a month, and people probably will forgive the violation. It’s too small of an issue to mar what looks to be a good career in the making. Has he made the greatest decisions? Probably not. But he hasn’t made the most terrible ones, either.

Even with all the controversial allegations going on, I still wanted Cam Newton to win the Heisman because he played well enough and earned it through his ability on the field. As long as he keeps working hard, producing and doesn’t call out his teammates, I hope he succeeds.

Michael Hurley, Senior Assistant Editor, 2:04 p.m., Monday:

I, personally, root for guys that are hated. It’s more fun that way. And people sure do seem to hate Cam Newton.

I understand why people may not be huge fans of the guy. He’s definitely got an ego, and those icon/entertainer quotes certainly rubbed people the wrong way. He also has the aforementioned checkered history, but given the corruption that goes on in college football from coast to coast, you are certifiably insane if you think Newton is one of the only people to have violated any rules.

Those people seem to be rooting so hard against Newton, you almost have to root for the kid. I’d like to see him succeed in part to make those people question their sanity and also to prove all those experts and scouts wrong. Remember that scout who said “If this weren’t Cam Newton, you’d say this guy has no business being on the field”? Well, we’re only one game in, so we don’t have to prepare for his Hall of Fame induction speech, but he sure looked like he had some business being on the field this week.

Plus, to Mr. Beattie’s point, don’t you like watching players with that type of athletic ability perform every Sunday? Isn’t that why you tune in to begin with? Sure, it’s fun to watch Tony Romo melt down on national TV from time to time, but that does get old.

Ben Watanabe, Assistant Editor, 2:57 p.m., Monday:

I find it hard to believe none of us cares about an athlete’s character. The satisfaction many fans felt at seeing Randy Moss get cut by the Patriots and LeBron James lose in the NBA Finals proves that we don’t just watch sports for the entertainment. We enjoy seeing the “good” guys overcome the “bad” guys, however each of us defines “bad.”

There are many athletes whom I find repugnant and would never root for. Ben Roethlisberger, Michael Vick, Brett Favre and Plaxico Burress jump to mind. Cam Newton is not one of them.

Newton broke the rules. If anyone believes his father acted without Newton’s knowledge, I have some excellent oceanfront property in Nebraska I’d love to sell you, sight unseen. Whether you think Cecil’s actions should even be illegal under NCAA rules is a different matter entirely; those rules were on the books and Newton felt those rules didn’t apply to him.

That said, those rules didn’t apply to him. Let’s be real. There’s a different set of rules for superstars. Tom Brady is lauded for never asking for special treatment on the field, but would Bill Belichick ever stand for the same type of off-field “distractions” – supermodel wife, GQ photo shoots, UGG boots commercials – from Danny Woodhead? Similarly, a football player I went through freshman orientation with at the illustrious Temple University committed a crime and was kicked out of school. But Newton was bounced from Florida for the laptop incident and still had ample interest from Mississippi State, Auburn and others. One was backup defensive back on the worst Division I-A program in the country. The other was one of the top high school prospects in the country. Talent determines the rules.

Where the Newton haters lose me is by denying Newton possesses this talent. It’s one thing to say “He’s immensely talented but I still don’t like him” and another thing to claim he’s not a rare, incredible talent. Favre is one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game; I just plain don’t like him. Although it pains me to admit it, Vick was an upgrade for the Eagles over an aging Donovan McNabb. But the folks who insisted, before Newton had taken so much as a training camp snap, that a 6-foot-5, 250-pound Heisman Trophy winner would never succeed in the pros just struck me as a whole bunch of hooey.

Patrick McHugh, Intern, 1:31 p.m., Tuesday:

Having Cam Newton succeed in the NFL is not bad for the pro game, but it is very bad for the college game. Think about it: Whether Cammy Cam really was involved in any of the allegations against him or not, he won the Heisman, won a national championship and was able to bolt school for the NFL draft before his senior season. Taken first overall, he signed a fully guaranteed $22 million contract and he gets a chance to star at the highest level. Everything for Newton is roses right now.

But let’s say the NCAA does some further investigating and finds that Newton was indeed involved in the pay-for-play scandal more so than just being a pawn for his father. That means he should have been ineligible. USC is finding out the hard way what that means. The school’s national titles were taken away and USC has been placed on a postseason ban. The Trojans have enough clout and recruiting talent to not let this affect them too much, but two years without bowl games is serious cash lost for the school.

The man responsible for USC’s current suspension is Reggie Bush. What happened to him after the NCAA ruling came down? Well, nothing really. He got his Heisman “stripped” but I think we all know he was the best player in college football that season. Now he is in the NFL, he already won a Super Bowl with the Saints and is getting paid handsomely to make plays for the Dolphins while living in waterfront property in Miami. Doesn’t seem like the NCAA has put much of a damper on his life, does it?

The point I’m trying to make is that Bush and Newton are two former college athletes involved in scandal and both were able to leave school early and move on to the professional ranks with only minor damage done to their reputation. It sends a bad message to college athletes that even if you are involved in shady activity, it doesn’t really impact you too much because you’re still going to make lots of money in the pros if you’re good enough. With that in mind, what’s to stop top college players from doing whatever they want in school if they know they can get away with it? To me, this completely undermines the college game, which is already on shaky ground to begin with.

So no, I will not be rooting for Cam Newton, because his success in the NFL is bad for college football, and college athletics in general.

Mike Cole, Assistant Editor, 3:10 a.m., Wednesday:

I’ll buy into P-Mac’s assertion that Newton’s (and Bush’s and everyone else’s) success in the NFL hurts the NCAA. And in that case, I guess I’m rooting for Newton.

I’m all about seeing the NCAA look bad, and if Newton following in Bush’s footsteps of having a successful, wealthy career helps do that, sign me up.

If there’s anything more corrupt than the Newtons, or Reggie Bush, or Miami boosters or even head coaches who bend the rules, it’s the NCAA. The NCAA is all about making the largest profit possible above all else, and it comes off as hypocritical when they try and come down on the aforementioned offenders.

College sports at the top level is a broken system. And if it takes the success of players like Newton to help further that point and hopefully restore some sort of validity to college sports down the line, then I’m all for it.

From everything I’ve heard and seen about Cam Newton, it pains me to root for him. But if his success helps cheapen the NCAA’s product even more, well, I might look pretty good in teal and black.

Ricky Doyle, Assistant Editor, 3:20 a.m., Wednesday:

I’m going to have to take the “John Beattie Special” on this one in that I’ll be rooting for Cam if it increases the overall product on Sunday — or Monday, but let’s be real here: If the Panthers are playing on Monday night, the NFL has bigger issues.

At the same time, though, I won’t be too broken up about it if he falls flat on his face like many of the “experts” have predicted. In other words, I don’t really get too vested in players on an individual level unless there’s some compelling reason for me really liking them or really disliking them. Cam doesn’t fall in either of those two categories.

I certainly don’t condone what he did in college, but I’ve seen much worse of pro athletes (Jarvaris Crittenton, anyone?). And you’ve got to remember he’s only 22 years old, and therefore still has plenty of time to mature. I mean, I tell my family that about me on a daily basis.

As for his somewhat arrogant demeanor, well, I can’t say I blame him. If I won a national championship, won the Heisman and got drafted first overall, you can bet your tush I’d walk around like I was the cat’s pajamas.

He’ll likely always be a polarizing figure. You can already tell that with all the controversy that’s surrounded him. But, like I said, I could really take certain players or leave them. If he succeeds, so be it and good for him. If not, someone else will come along that’ll make us forget Cam Newton even existed.

Of course, if it was my laptop that he stole, you better believe I would’ve been bringing the ruckus down to Auburn.

Moral of the story: I like football — Cam Newton or no Cam Newton.

P.S. Don’t bring Gisele into this. She’s a saint.

RULING

It’s unanimous: Nobody is going to entrust Newton with guarding their electronics.

As to the bigger issue of whether we’ll be rooting for Cam Cam Bigelow to succeed in the NFL, the ruling is a resoundingly tepid “sorta.” The transgression of taking money during recruitment isn’t much of a transgression at all in the context of the millions of dollars generated by and for the NCAA, so we’re not going to condemn him for capitalizing on his gifts. Even if it does leave a bad taste in our mouths, that was college. This is the pros, where alleged sexual predators, dog murderers and genital-texters are premium clientele.

Go Cam!

Editor's note: Each week, NESN.com's editorial staff will debate a topic via email in a feature called "Field Judges." We'll post the conversation and the ruling on NESN.com.

This week's question: Which quarterback is more important to his team's success, Peyton Manning or Tom Brady?

Ricky Doyle, Assistant Editor, Tuesday, 10:08 a.m.:

Why hello there. I hope everybody's got their debate shoes on. And if not, regular shoes will work just fine. But, nevertheless, it's time for us to question each other's intelligence and tackle another toss-up — a Watertown Throwdown, if you will.

This week, I think it's time we venture into the world of football because I couldn't be any more fired about about the season starting. Hopefully you are all as pumped and jacked as I am. Anywho, with Peyton Manning's 2011 season up in the air, I can't help but think back to Tom Brady going down in the season opener three years ago. I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that both future Hall of Famers are a major reason why the Patriots and Colts are consistently Super Bowl contenders, but who, in your opinion, is more important to his team's success?

Ben Watanabe, Assistant Editor, Tuesday, 11:10 a.m.:

You're a cruel man to pose this question, Richard. You've forced me to go against Tom Brady, thereby placing in jeopardy the livelihoods of myself and my loved ones. Our blood will be on your hands.

As far as "who is better," I don't think there's much doubt it's Brady. If New England is starting a drive on their own 20 in a tie game with two minutes left, you can pretty much turn off the TV knowing Brady is going to orchestrate a game-winning drive. As to who is more important, though, my vote is Manning.

Both the Patriots and Colts have become perennial Super Bowl contenders during these guys' tenures, but take away Manning and the Colts become the Jaguars or Titans. Prior to Manning's arrival, the Colts were a dismal franchise. Their five previous seasons before drafting Manning went like this: 4-12, 8-8, 9-7, 9-7, 3-13. That's a 33-47 cumulative record. They were 3-13 Manning's rookie year, reversed that record in his second season and have won at least 10 games every season (save one) ever since.

The Patriots at least had a puncher's chance before Brady arrived. Maybe everyone suffers from short memories, but Drew Bledsoe was a pretty good quarterback. Real fans will never forget the way he took the Pats to the playoffs in a gutsy, injury-riddled 1998 campaign – not to mention Super Bowl XXXI, when Desmond Howard went crazy. In the five seasons before Brady took over as the starter, New England went 11-5, 10-6, 9-7, 8-8, 5-11. That's 43-37 combined. The franchise was clearly trending downward, but it wasn't toppling, as it was in Indianapolis.

Is either team championship caliber without its All-Pro QB? Probably not. But I'd take Bill Belichick, Vince Wilfork and Ryan Mallett/Brian Hoyer over Jim Caldwell, Dwight Freeney and Curtis Painter/Kerry Collins. Wouldn't you? 

John Beattie, Associate Editor, Friday, 11:50 a.m.:

Peyton Manning is far more important to his team than Brady is to the Pats.

Manning's Colts are built around him and the playbook is designed for his arm, awareness and abilities. Without him, who are the Colts?

Without Brady, the Pats remain a cohesive unit, spearheaded by one of the greatest coaches of all time. Not to take anything away from Brady's abilities, but if Matt Cassel can come in and bag 11 wins in the offense on short notice, then who couldn't?

Michael Hurley, Senior Assistant Editor, Friday, 3:52 p.m.:

We could go on and on about hypotheticals, but why bother when we have concrete evidence?

And you don't have to go back to Drew Bledsoe, either. You can just go back to 2008, when the football world was robbed of the opportunity to watch Tom Brady;s mastery every Sunday. The Patriots definitely weren't as good a team with Matt Cassel under center than they would have been with Mr. Brady, but they went 11-5 and finished eighth in the league with 25.6 points per game.

Now, we'll find out if the Colts can play similarly without Manning, though there aren't many folks on this earth who are willing to bet the Colts are going to win 11 games. Likewise, you're nuts if you think they're going to score the 27.2 points per game that they did last year with some combination of Kerry Collins and Curtis Painter taking snaps. It's going to be ugly.

We won't know until the end of the season, but it's clear that the Colts are built almost entirely around Manning, while the Patriots can at least survive for a little without the greatest quarterback on the planet.

Jeff Howe, NESN.com Patriots reporter, Friday, 5:31 p.m.:

Peyton Manning might have had the greatest single season for a quarterback in NFL history in 2009, when he resuscitated the Colts with late-game heroics week after week, and somehow managed to lead them to the Super Bowl, where he obviously went kerplunk. It was a similar story in 2010.

The Colts' offensive line has been fairly pathetic for a couple seasons, and they can't come close to running the ball the way they used to. Plus, their defense has been a shell of itself since the middle of the decade when they were great against the pass and (sometimes) efficient against the run. The most feared portion of the Colts' defense is the heat they bring on the quarterback in obvious passing situations, which are the direct results of the big leads that Manning has built.

Point being, the Colts have a bad football team around Manning, and they don't have Tony Dungy to motivate them anymore. Manning has said things about head coach Jim Caldwell to make you wonder if he's got any faith in him at all, and Caldwell hasn't exactly done anything to prove him wrong.

You want me to believe Kerry Collins can rescue this team? Give me a break.

The Patriots are stacked at just about every position. If Brian Hoyer took over the offense, I think they'd have a good opportunity to reach double-digit victories because of the power they've acquired on defense and the explosion they've now found at running back.

The Colts might have been able to skate by without Manning earlier in the decade, but they don't have a chance without him now. It's the organization's fault for not surrounding him with enough talent.

Ricky Doyle, Saturday, 8:38 p.m.:

As much as I'd love to play devil's advocate just to get a rise out of you guys, I cannot bring myself to do so. I must hop aboard the Manning bandwagon and label him as more important to his team. However, I don't think it's the landslide that you all have made it out to be.

I know Matt Cassel came in and the Pats still won 11 games in 2008. But that was also at a point when there were debates as to whether the Pats could run the table in the regular season again. Was it likely? No. But that's how good they were considered to be entering that season after their 18-1 campaign the year prior. I think you would've found a lot of people who thought the Pats would rack up 13 wins or more that season with Brady at the helm. In other words, by losing Brady, the Pats probably lost three or four more games than they would have with him in the lineup, which is a pretty good indication of how valuable he is.

Also, I've never seen a player have a more positive impact on the players around him than Brady. He's elevated the production of a number of mediocre players throughout his career in a way that I'm not sure Manning could. I'll admit a lot of that has more to do with the offense that Bill Belichick runs, but Brady still deserves a certain degree of credit.

Deion Branch is the classic example, in my opinion. There was some question as to what kind of impact he would have upon his return to the Pats because of his drop-off in production in Seattle. Yet when he arrived back in New England, it looked like he had never left the Pats' offense, as Brady immediately turned him back into the player that signed a six-year, $39 million contract after the 2005 season.

Wes Welker also sticks out to me. He's a talented player, no doubt. But Brady has transformed him from a solid slot receiver and kick/punt return specialist into a perennial Pro Bowler. Randy Moss, as physically gifted as he is, even benefited greatly from having Brady as his QB, going from a receiver who was trending downward to a receiver who posted one of the most statistically impressive seasons in NFL history. Even guys like David Patten, David Givens and Reche Caldwell became solid receivers in New England in large part because of Brady's guidance on the field.

For these reasons, I'd take Brady over Manning any day of the week and twice on Sunday if I were to assemble a team. But, when you look at each one's team as it stands, I can't deny the fact that the Pats are better built for sustained success than the Colts, which you guys have all alluded to. In fact, I'll be surprised if the Colts make the playoffs this season, whereas I think the Pats would still make the postseason even if Brady were to sustain an injury (God forbid).

RULING

Peyton Manning and Tom Brady will forever be compared because, for years, they were head and shoulders above the rest of the quarterbacks in the NFL. But while deciding which quarterback is "better" could yield a different answer, everyone seems to agree that Manning is more valuable to the Colts than Brady is to the Patriots.

A large part of why we all believe this to be true is because the Pats played without Brady in 2008 and still showed that they can be a solid football team, picking up 10 wins despite missing the playoffs. We've never seen what kind of team the Colts are without Manning because he's started every game since entering the league in 1998. We're now going to get our first taste of the Colts without Manning, though, and everyone seems to be in agreement that the results might not be pretty. It's up to Kerry Collins to prove us wrong.

Editor's note: Each week, NESN.com's editorial staff will debate a topic via email in a feature called "Field Judges." We'll post the conversation and the ruling on NESN.com.

This week's question(s): Does it matter if the Red Sox win the division, which leads to the follow-up question, should they do all they can to win the AL East?

Mike Cole, Assistant Editor, 11:46 a.m., Wednesday

Good morning all,
I hope this finds you well. It's that time of the week — albeit a little late — for everyone to fight for second place behind yours truly on the NESN debate team in this week's Field Judges.

With the Yankees in town for what now looks like a spirited three-game set, we're going to talk baseball again this week. More specifically, we're talking the AL East. From a Red Sox point of view, this is kind of a two-part question. Does it matter if the Red Sox win the division, which leads to the follow-up question, should they do all they can to win the AL East?

There are a ton of factors involved here. Does who you would play in the first round matter? Do you place a greater emphasis on getting healthy, getting rested and getting your rotation in order? Are you just competitive and say if there's a race for the division, you should go for the win?

Tons to debate. So let's have at it my friends.

Ben Watanabe, Assistant Editor, 4:24 p.m., Wednesday

I remember in 1995 when winning the division pennant was kind of a big deal. The Red Sox were still affected by the curse and fans had not quite adjusted to the idea that the wild card entrant had as good a chance of winning the World Series as anyone else. People still bought "Division champs" T-shirts and we all thought it was a big deal. Nine years later, the Red Sox won it all and many people hardly noticed they did it via the wild card. Other than home field advantage -– which only served to assure the Red Sox celebrated both the 2004 and 2007 titles away from Fenway Park – the difference between the division title and the wild card is negligible.

So I'll now pull a complete 180 and declare that, yes, it is important for the Red Sox to win the AL East this season. Other than a love of contradicting myself, I'm somewhat swayed by the proposed realignment. By next season, we could have an odd number of teams in each league, a wild card play-in game, and three days off between the end of the regular season and the start of the postseason for division winners. The whole thing is going to feel a lot different. They're considering doing away with the concept of division winners altogether and simply taking the top four teams from each league as an alternative to the "play-in" series. This would be more fair for clubs like Tampa Bay and Toronto, who often put a product on the field at least as good or better than the junk that comes out of the AL Central.

If this is the last year any team will be able to stake a claim to the title of "American League East Division Champions," I'd like the Red Sox to own it. Just think, the Red Sox would forever be the reigning AL East champs. I think we’d all rather the Red Sox have those bragging rights than the Yankees.

Michael Hurley, Senior Assistant Editor, 10:04 a.m., Thursday

Nobody likes a fence-sitter, but in this situation, there is no choice.

It's as simple as this: Yes, winning the division is important, because when your home ballpark is as unique as Fenway, you’d like to play there as much as possible in October. It's important because you can generally pick your ALDS schedule, which allows you to pick your days off. It's important, on a lesser level, to call yourself AL East champs, as Ben said. Plus, it’s always nice for the Red Sox when they finish the season better than the Yankees. For all the successes of the past eight years or so, that's only happened twice since the strike.

While all of that is important, here is what’s more important: Health and the rotation. Terry Francona is just not going to burn out his regulars to win a title when they've got the wild card locked up. He's not. You can look at 2008 for a recent example. The Sox had a chance to win the division if they swept the Yankees at Fenway Park. Instead, in the series opener, Francona gave at-bats to Chris Carter, Jonathan Van Every and Jeff Bailey. Gil Velazquez started at second, Kevin Cash behind the plate. David Pauley made one of his two starts that night, and he got shelled (seven runs in 2 2/3 innings).

The Sox lost 19-8. They happily accepted their playoff berth as the wild card.

Obviously, that postseason didn't end as they'd hoped, but the message was clear. Terry Francona values resting his position players and setting up his rotation over going for broke and winning the division. If the Red Sox can take care of both, they'll be happy, but that clubhouse knows there are bigger fish to fry than a division title.

I tend to agree with him, too. If the Red Sox needed two wins to close out the season and win the division, would you want Jon Lester and Josh Beckett to pitch those games, thereby setting up either John Lackey, Erik Bedard or Andrew Miller to start Game 1 of the ALDS?

Tony Lee, NESN.com Red Sox beat writer, 12:10 p.m., Friday

Two recent comments stand out to me when thinking about this issue.

One came from newly acquired Red Sox outfielder Conor Jackson, who was asked upon his arrival what it will be like to be on the home side at Fenway Park.

"Any time you come here to play as an opposing player, it’s intimidating," Jackson said. “There are definitely fans that get in your head.”

Another comment came from manager Terry Francona when he was asked about the debate last week.

"There's advantages, obviously, to playing at home [in the playoffs]," he said.

Now, it should be noted that Francona also stressed his reluctance to win the division at all costs and emphasized the importance of being rested and ready, and Mr. Hurley pointed out a fine example of that mindset. But when we're talking about October, we're usually talking about tight games in short series with very little margin for error. It would seem that any "intimidation" or "advantages" gained by playing at Fenway Park as many times as possible is certainly worth striving for.

That's not to say Francona should do everything he can to beat out the Yankees. And having home field advantage in the postseason is not even a sure thing (home teams were 13-19 in the 2010 playoffs). Yes, the tournament can become a crapshoot. As we sit here today, though, the thought of playing those first two tone-setting games in Boston is vastly different from the idea of beginning in a place like Texas or Detroit. Same goes for a potential deciding Game 5, regardless of what the home-road history in October might suggest.

Entering Friday's play, the top three playoff contenders outside of the division — Detroit, Texas and Anaheim — were separated by 3 1/2 games. And we know the AL East is up for grabs, hence the debate in the first place. That means forecasting who plays who is somewhat pointless right now. What we do know is what awaits the division winner in terms of where it plays, and I'll take an opportunity to start the postseason at home any day.

This debate can really rage in the final week of the season, when we have a better idea of who the opponent will be and how the Red Sox rotation is lined up. At that point, Francona can assess the situation and either put his foot on the gas or pull back on the reins, give Kyle Weiland a start and sit Dustin Pedroia, or whatever he needs to do.

Until then, his club should be doing all it can to ensure it opens October (it's actually Sept. 30 this year) at home, where intimidation and advantages await.

Mike Cole

The more I think about this, it seems like it really is too early to debate, but with the Yankees in town this week, it made sense. We may even get a better idea of how important the outcome of this question is this weekend when Texas, a potential playoff opponent, comes into town with something to prove after last week.

Anyway, the more I think about it, the more I think you have to lean toward being sharp and ready and most importantly, healthy, when the playoffs start. Winning the division is nice, but when you are as good as the Red Sox are, don't you feel that you can go into any park and win? I sure think so.

Now, there is something to be said for having homefield, particularly when you play your home games at Fenway. But, there's also something to be said, as Hurley touched upon, for having Beckett and Lester (or Lester and Beckett) ready to go in Games 1 and 2 in say, Texas.

That's the biggest thing to me. I feel like the Red Sox are good enough to beat anyone, anywhere. For further proof of this, please see Boston's 42-26 record away from the Fens. Am I manipulating the stats by using regular season numbers to proof a playoff point? Am I swayed by the fact that the Sox wiped out the Rangers last week deep in the heart of Texas? You bet and yessir. But this is my space, so tough noogies.

I'm also with T-Lee in my advice to Terry Francona, though: Just keep winning, my man. Win this series. And then the next. And then maybe the next. Build your lead in the early weeks of September and then put your feet up, chew some bubble gum and break out the fuzzy fleece for October because you'll be going to open the playoffs at home — and as AL East champions.

Oh, and steer clear of David Pauley.

RULING

We had a 180 and a guy sitting on a fence, but the answer is somewhat clear. The consensus seems to be that winning the AL East and getting to play at Fenway Park to open any series that isn't the World Series, is the way to go, at least for now. Just don't get anybody hurt.