Still plenty of discussion and articles out there as we’re in day two of Pedro’s defection and Weis’ promotion. When it comes right down to it…what’s the difference between the two of them? They’re both leaving to get more money, a larger role, and be “the man” where they’re going. If you consider it more closely, Weis did this while he was still under contract to one team, and you could argue that he’s damaging his current team and being “disloyal” by his actions. I’m NOT saying that. I only bring it up because in many circles Pedro is being painted as a selfish villain, while Weis is be lauded for getting an opportunity he deserves. It’s all about how you look at it and spin it, I guess.

Still on Weis, an interesting note from yesterday’s press conference was his denial that his gastric bypass surgery had anything to do with his desire to be a head coach.

Q. The surgery that you went through, I read that you talked about becoming a head coach, it was important to lose weight and appearance --

COACH WEIS: I never said that. The newspaper writer is sitting there saying that's the reason why you do that.

The thing is though, that Weis DID say that. Here’s the Chris Mortensen article from when Weis had the surgery.

"I'm not going to deny what my motive was, even though there are obvious long-term health benefits," said Weis. "My thoughts were that if I wanted to be a head coach, I had to lose weight. If that was the obstacle that was going to keep me from being a head coach, then why not do something about it?"

OK. It doesn’t matter to me what the motivation for the surgery was. It doesn’t even matter to me that he issued that denial yesterday…it’s not exactly something you want to address on your first day. I just find it interesting that no one in the media here has addressed the denial. You know why? Because they like Charlie and want him to succeed. I like Charlie and want him to succeed as well. But shouldn’t their jobs as professional journalists compel them to be reporting inconsistencies like this? Not to gloss it over or ignore it outright because they like the speaker?

Eric McHugh looks at the job facing Weis and the Patriots over the rest of the season and the playoffs. Glen Farley has Bill Belichick speaking about how the team will handle the situation. Tom King looks at how Belichick is unhappy with his team despite their 12-1 mark. McHugh also looks at how the Patriots are taking the best shot from all teams, even the very lowly ones on the schedule.

Mike Reiss has a couple of entries in his blog today. One looks at the job that Pepper Johnson is doing with the defensive line. The latest update has the news that the Patriots have agreed to a contract extension with one of Johnson’s pupils, Rodney Bailey, who is currently on IR and out for the season. The new deal runs through 2006.

Yes, it’s back to Pedro. Chaz Scoggins says that the Red Sox were right not to give into Pedro this time. Bill Simmons can’t believe Pedro is headed out of town, and can’t find it in himself to root against the guy. He floats the Bob Halloran-like theory that the Theo and the Red Sox won in spite of themselves and were helped out by the Yankees, both on and off the field. Mike Fine says that losing Pedro isn’t the end of the world, even if he’s going to pitch in a goat corral. Bob Stern paints a gloomy picture for the Red Sox and says Pedro is “greedy, disloyal, selfish, disrespectful and downright manipulative.” Dan DeLeo gets reaction from Red Sox fans of Pedro’s departure.

Amanda Parry has a look at Ken Burns’ latest film for PBS: “Unforgivable Blackness: The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson.”