Football

[Meddling Mike]

I'm not going to deny that the Bengals D is tragically bad, but 13 points won't win you many games and that had nothing to do with how bad the Bengals D is. It's also worth pointing out that the Patriots looked like they were just killing time in the second half and Matt Cassel took on the victory formation deep in Bengals territory.

That's one of the things I don't get about people who have claimed that the Patriots are deliberately running up the score as a way of giving their detractors the finger. They pointed out how they went for it against San Diego on 4 and 1 while in the five yard line and a huge lead deep into the 4th quarter and ended up scoring the Touchdown, seems to me like they were just trying to wrap things up quickly. Alot of the Patriots contracts are incentive based, what was he supposed to do? Fall down in front of the end zone so they could run out the clock on the goal line? I think if the situation called for it the Patriots could've run up the score even more in all four games.

[kirdape3]

A ferocious game will ensue when the Patriots fight the Colts.  If the Colts are fully operational (that is Harrison and Addai and Sanders are healthy), then both sides are eminently capable of smashing into the other with reckless abandon.

It will actually be instructive to see whether or not the Maroney/Morris combo will be effective when the Colts will be doing everything in their power (and their pass defense has been very good for awhile) to keep Moss and the Brady show from having their way with the game.  Even with Thomas able to play pass defense against Smith all over the field, we have demonstrated that the Colts can score on New England especially in that track meet.

[The Demon]

SO, I finally saw some more of Carson Palmer.

Two Interceptions, one TD and two field goals......yeah, I can see why you think he's up there with Brady and Manning.

Your right, I mean he was only playing against the best defense in the NFL.  I mean that sure is an amazing argument there.  Look at this career stats, and then compare them to the rest of the league.  Then after you do that you will get it. 

[forests failed you]

Yeah Lions!  Get you.  "for cereal."

[Meddling Mike]

SO, I finally saw some more of Carson Palmer.

Two Interceptions, one TD and two field goals......yeah, I can see why you think he's up there with Brady and Manning.

Your right, I mean he was only playing against the best defense in the NFL.  I mean that sure is an amazing argument there.  Look at this career stats, and then compare them to the rest of the league.  Then after you do that you will get it. 

Allright, I'll say it again, Palmer has always had good receivers and something resembling a running game backing him up and hasn't really accomplished much of anything with it. Brady never had big name receivers outside of Branch and no running game outside of that one good year they got out of Corey Dillon. Granted, all the blame can't be placed on Palmer or all the credit given to Brady, but they're team leaders and the head of their respective  offenses. I never saw Brady in shouting matches with his receivers going into the locker room at half time, but I sure saw Palmer and Ocho-Cinco doing that on MNF. I think that says alot about the difference between these two QB's. This is the first year Brady has had some real targets to throw to and look at his QB Rating so far this year! He's #1 in the NFL at 128.7, the next closest is Tony Romo at 112.9, where's Palmer you ask? 12th at 90.4

As for Manning, the Colts defense has been terrible over the years, arguably on the same level as the Bengals D, but Manning had weapons and managed to carry the team to good records and the playoffs year in and year out. I hate the guy, but I'll give him credit for carrying his team, something Palmer doesn't seem to be able to do.

A ferocious game will ensue when the Patriots fight the Colts.  If the Colts are fully operational (that is Harrison and Addai and Sanders are healthy), then both sides are eminently capable of smashing into the other with reckless abandon.

It will actually be instructive to see whether or not the Maroney/Morris combo will be effective when the Colts will be doing everything in their power (and their pass defense has been very good for awhile) to keep Moss and the Brady show from having their way with the game.  Even with Thomas able to play pass defense against Smith all over the field, we have demonstrated that the Colts can score on New England especially in that track meet.

I'm not even thinking about the Colts yet, I can't look past the big game with the Cowboys IN DALLAS next Sunday. If the Patriots roll off a win down there against a 4-0 team (probably 5-0 after they devour the Bills on MNF tonight) I expect the 16-0 talk to become deafeningly loud. The Cowboys have an amazing offense, but how will they stack up against a real AFC powerhouse like the Patriots? If they win here it'll bring alot of legitimacy to the Cowboys as Super Bowl contenders, something the NFC hasn't really had in quite some time.

[Vegeta2711]

Blah blah blah stupid QB shit nobody cares about... in other news.

Holy fucking shit the Bills / Dallas MNF game was insane, game of the year easily. Buffalo played out of their minds and lost a heartbreaker, but they also exposed Dallas for frauds and at the same time took one step closer to the top three picks in the NFL draft (Which they sorely need).

[Disburden]

Dallas is a fraud? What team throws 6 picks in one game and still has the strategy and heart to still win by one point and go 5-0? Oh, yeah, that's Dallas. What a fraud. The bills should have crushed Dallas by a huge spread after so many interceptions. They even returned a kick off for a touchdown!  Bills should have had that game by at least 10. What do they have to do to win?! This loss is going to crush their spirits. If anything, this game proves how incredibly resilient the Cowboys are.


You know what's crap? Calling time out with one second left when the ball is about to be snapped on a field goal. That rule is going out the window next season.

[MadManiac21]

Dallas is a fraud? What team throws 6 picks in one game and still has the strategy and heart to still win by one point and go 5-0? 

The question is what team is BAD enough to let that happen. Dallas played like absolute shit. If Dallas had played against a group of monkeys from the Congo they would have lost by a huge spread. Lucky for them, the '07 Bills are one of the worst teams in recent history.

This just gets me excited to watch the Pats stomp them next week. Hehehe.

[Disburden]

Exactly, they did play like crap, and they still won the game. They're one of the big three 5-0 teams tonight after playing like crap. The Bills are just horrible.

I will give it to the Bills for putting up a fight though. I was expecting a total ass beating tonight.

Patriots are going to crush Dallas next week though. Romo is going to be thinking about tonight's game and blow it.

[Vegeta2711]

Dallas is a fraud? What team throws 6 picks in one game and still has the strategy and heart to still win by one point and go 5-0? Oh, yeah, that's Dallas. What a fraud. The bills should have crushed Dallas by a huge spread after so many interceptions. They even returned a kick off for a touchdown!  Bills should have had that game by at least 10. What do they have to do to win?! This loss is going to crush their spirits. If anything, this game proves how incredibly resilient the Cowboys are.

You know what's crap? Calling time out with one second left when the ball is about to be snapped on a field goal. That rule is going out the window next season.

The fact that Dallas was even in that situation against Buffalo, who completely suck both statistically and watching the games, along with the fact that the combined records of their opponents is 6-19.

As I said, Buffalo played way above themselves and found a way to lose it on the last onside kick / drive of the game. Good for Dallas. But when compare it to the ass beatings NE has laid on the opponents they played the Colts have trashed solid teams at least.

p.s. Nick Folk is clutch.

[Dxfiler]

Dallas is no fraud.  They are easily the best team in the NFC at this time despite scraping by the bills instead of obliterating them.

This weekend if anything showed how overated the Packers and the Lions were.  Those teams will struggle more as the season moves on...
Dallas will probably end up with a very solid record like a 12-4 or 13-3.  Expect loss number one next Sunday.

I mean Dallas could've obliterated the Bills as everyone expected, it wouldn't change next week's outcome.  Sure, Dallas could win due to homefield advantage, but NE is a hell of an away team.

There's exactly one team in the same league as NE and that would be Indy.  When those two square off you're looking at what should but never could be the superbowl.  I agree with earlier posters that if Indy is healthy going into that game, they have the best chance of putting a loss in the column of the Pats.

Then again it's the NFL and any team can beat any other team under the right circumstances, but I don't think it's too early to get excited about an undefeated season for the Pats.  They historically only get better as time goes on... and they've never looked this good.

- Dave

[Meddling Mike]

Buffalo played out of their minds and lost a heartbreaker, but they also exposed Dallas for frauds and at the same time took one step closer to the top three picks in the NFL draft (Which they sorely need).

Correction: The Buffalo DEFENSE played out of their minds. Do you realize the Buffalo offense only had one scoring drive the whole game putting up 3 points for a FG? The defense and special teams put up 21 points. The Buffalo defense created 6 turnovers off Tony Romo. Your defense yields 6 turnovers against what had been the most prolific offense in football and you can't manage more than a 3 spot for them? That's pathetic. I'd include the special teams in the "playing out of their minds" category but apparently they didn't practice the "catch the ball and fall down" play to deal with desperation onside kicks.

There were so many times where the Bills were in a situation where they could easily have won this game and they blew it. Get a first down and you can run out the clock, don't throw an interception deep in the red zone and you can lock up the game with a field goal, don't screw up the onsides kick and you win, don't let them get into FG range, put some real pressure on the rookie kicker going for his career long (including college) with the game on the line!

For me, the honeymoon is over with regards to Dallas. Their opponents have a combined record of 6-19 including the 0-5 Dolphins and the 0-5 Rams. Their offense is clearly not something you can hang your hat on after last night and their defense isn't anything to write home about. They could grab some credibility back by beating New England or giving them a run for their money, but they're coming awfully close to getting the "pretender" tag in my book. That said, the NFC sucks and I could still see them making the super bowl and getting eaten alive by the Patriots/Colts/Steelers.

[The Demon]

SO, I finally saw some more of Carson Palmer.

Two Interceptions, one TD and two field goals......yeah, I can see why you think he's up there with Brady and Manning.

Your right, I mean he was only playing against the best defense in the NFL.  I mean that sure is an amazing argument there.  Look at this career stats, and then compare them to the rest of the league.  Then after you do that you will get it. 

Allright, I'll say it again, Palmer has always had good receivers and something resembling a running game backing him up and hasn't really accomplished much of anything with it. Brady never had big name receivers outside of Branch and no running game outside of that one good year they got out of Corey Dillon. Granted, all the blame can't be placed on Palmer or all the credit given to Brady, but they're team leaders and the head of their respective  offenses. I never saw Brady in shouting matches with his receivers going into the locker room at half time, but I sure saw Palmer and Ocho-Cinco doing that on MNF. I think that says alot about the difference between these two QB's. This is the first year Brady has had some real targets to throw to and look at his QB Rating so far this year! He's #1 in the NFL at 128.7, the next closest is Tony Romo at 112.9, where's Palmer you ask? 12th at 90.4
As for Manning, the Colts defense has been terrible over the years, arguably on the same level as the Bengals D, but Manning had weapons and managed to carry the team to good records and the playoffs year in and year out. I hate the guy, but I'll give him credit for carrying his team, something Palmer doesn't seem to be able to do.

Barring CJ Palmer has never had another outstanding WR.  Go take a look at the stats of T.J. before Palmer started playing, and then look at him after.  Palmer made guys like Kelley Washington, Glen Holt, Antonio Chatman, and Skyler Green look good.  So what they had a shouting match?  Not only does that have nothing to do with how good a QB is, I once saw Reggie Wayne and Peyton Manning get into a shoving match......  Did you ever stop to think why Palmers QB rating is where it is?  Could it be because  he had to play the Ravens, Seahawks, and Ravens ?    I find it funny that the argument of Palmer has always had great recievers doesnt work for Manning?  Brady has almost always had real targets to throw the ball to.  Barring last year he had a good WR CORE.  As in one through three his WR CORE was better then most other teams.  Brown, Givens and Branch as a CORE matchup up well with almost any other WR CORE in the NFL when they where together.  Saying that Brady didnt have a good WR core is a fallacy, saying that he never had an elite WR isn't. There is a difference.  If you put Manning, Or Palmer on those Patriot teams the results would have been the same.  Contrary to popular belief in the New England area, Brady doesn't have this amazing power to win games by himself.  Go back and look at all of those playoff games, you will see that his WR's played well, his running game was usually good, his defense always was good. He was/is the QB on a great team, he will get too much credit like Terry Bradshaw did.  Look, Tom Brady is a good QB.  He will end up in the HOF and he will deserve to be there, but he is not a better passer then Carson Palmer.   As far as Palmer accomplishing something, sure he has.  He has several Bengal franchise records, has lead the NFL in a lot of stats.  What you mean by accomplishing something is winning, and once again that is a TEAM ACCOMPLISHMENT.  What is so hard to understand about that?  Palmer plays on the team with the worst defense in the league.  Brady plays on a team that is always at the top of the league as far as defense goes.  Have you ever heard of the phrase "Defense wins championships"?  As a Bengals fan  I feel bad for Palmer going out week after week and consistently playing at a high level and watching him get screwed by his defense.  Have you ever seen another QB lose when he has thrown for 6 TD's?  Have you?  People say Brady is a better QB because he is on a winning team, not because he is a better QB.  You even admitted that you havent even see Palmer play much, in other words your admitting that your uninformed on the issue...

[Vegeta2711]

First off, that post needs some paragraph breaks for some readability issues.

Secondly,

He was/is the QB on a great team, he will get too much credit like Terry Bradshaw did.

Let's not say things we can't take back, shall we? Bradshaw is a bit of an overrated QB, very solid one though, but he had one of the top flight defenses in the league for an entire era and Lynn Swan who made the most ridiculous circus catches I've ever seen. You can't really draw comparisons from the two teams without some awfully spotty give and pull in the comparisons.

That all said, Brady is overrated in the sense that some people actually put him in like top 3 QB's of all time distinctions. Maybe by the end of his career he will be, but not at the moment.

[kirdape3]

Top 3 QBs ever:

Otto Graham (6 championships, but what people forget is the year after he retired the team was 5-7; every year he played his team was in the championship game)
Joe Montana (4 for 4 in championship games)
Johnny Unitas (3 championships in 5 or 6 tries, but every year he was healthy Baltimore was either #1 or #2 in a division with the Lombardi-era Green Bay Packers, good feat)

Other guys might have more numbers or were better at certain things, but I like winning games more and Graham certainly was the best at it.  The telling stat was that he retired after 1955 with a 9-3 record on the old Browns; the next year they were 5-7 and fourth in the NFL's Eastern Conference.  Hey, at least they drafted Jim Brown right after that, right?

[Vegeta2711]

Agree with that list, very solid. Always have to give props to who mentions to old QB's like Graham, Unitas and Tarkenton.

Also think Bart Starr and John Elway are up in the top 5 as well.

[kirdape3]

Starr actually has to be on that list - 1960 lost championship game, 1961 won, 1962 won (13-1 that year, utterly destroyed everyone), 1965-67 won.  However, without Lombardi the Packers did no better than 8-6 in Starr's tenure as the starting QB.

[The Demon]

First off, that post needs some paragraph breaks for some readability issues.

Secondly,

He was/is the QB on a great team, he will get too much credit like Terry Bradshaw did.

Let's not say things we can't take back, shall we? Bradshaw is a bit of an overrated QB, very solid one though, but he had one of the top flight defenses in the league for an entire era and Lynn Swan who made the most ridiculous circus catches I've ever seen. You can't really draw comparisons from the two teams without some awfully spotty give and pull in the comparisons.

That all said, Brady is overrated in the sense that some people actually put him in like top 3 QB's of all time distinctions. Maybe by the end of his career he will be, but not at the moment.

Terry Bradshaw has the liftime QB rating in the 70s.  He only threw two more TDs then INTs.  That is terrible, in fact that is god awful, especially when you think about the fact that he had TWO HOF wideouts that he was throwing the ball to. 

Brady gets credit for being on winning teams.  He has never blown anyone away with his passing abilities, he has only had above average stats despite having a good WR core to throw to for most of his career.  He has had some clutch moments in the past, and he has also had a lot of moments where he got the ball back because of his defense holding someone to a three and out or getting a turnover.  Heck in the SB against the Panthers he was lucky enough to get the ball back on the 40 because the Panthers kicked the ball out of bounds on the kickoff.  People want to point to his stats this year to prove that he is a good QB, and that is fine by me.  He has been making good throws for most of his career, he hasn't been making great ones.  I have seen guys like Manning and Palmer make pin point accurate throws that most other QBs cannot.  All this year Brady has been throwing the ball to a guy who beat triple coverage down the field against the Jets, and just flat out jumped over the Bengals DB's all day.  Brady gets the benefit of the doubt and all the love because he happened to fall on the right team and the right time.  It is illogical to think that if you put Manning or Palmer on the Patriots that they would not have had the same outcome. 

[Vegeta2711]

It is illogical to think that if you put Manning or Palmer on the Patriots that they would not have had the same outcome. 

It's completely ridiculous to play that game and you should know that. That's like the misguided arguments that Emmitt Smith was only good because of the line he had or Dan Marino only didn't get a ring because of his defense. People are judged on what they do with the teams they have, period.

Also, you can't possibly believe QB rating means anything relevant. It's a nice stat to make fun of Rex Grossman with, but that's where it's usefulness stops.

Terry Bradshaw has the lifetime QB rating in the 70s.

To hold this against him is misinformed at best and idiotic at worst. Terry Bradshaw in large part played during the dead ball era of football. A QB rating from the seventies is to be held in much higher regard today considering how much they've ballooned. 18 of the 25 toughest defenses (and lowest points scored against defenses) in the Super Bowl era came from the the time period of 1969-1979. Remember in 1978 the NFL changed a large number of rules after the record setting defenses and overall low scoring across the league to open up offenses again. Since then the game has only become increasingly slanted toward giving the offense a bit more of a break on things. 

Yes Bradshaw had an erratic arm and that's generally why he's not so high up on top QB lists despite his 4 rings. That still doesn't mean he was a god-awful passer, nor was he just lucky when taken in context with the era he played in.

Seriously some of your arguments just make you sound like a total homer. I don't even like Bradshaw, but QB rating as a valid argument? Please.

[The Demon]

It is illogical to think that if you put Manning or Palmer on the Patriots that they would not have had the same outcome. 

It's completely ridiculous to play that game and you should know that. That's like the misguided arguments that Emmitt Smith was only good because of the line he had or Dan Marino only didn't get a ring because of his defense. People are judged on what they do with the teams they have, period.

Also, you can't possibly believe QB rating means anything relevant. It's a nice stat to make fun of Rex Grossman with, but that's where it's usefulness stops.

Terry Bradshaw has the lifetime QB rating in the 70s.

To hold this against him is misinformed at best and idiotic at worst. Terry Bradshaw in large part played during the dead ball era of football. A QB rating from the seventies is to be held in much higher regard today considering how much they've ballooned. 18 of the 25 toughest defenses (and lowest points scored against defenses) in the Super Bowl era came from the the time period of 1969-1979. Remember in 1978 the NFL changed a large number of rules after the record setting defenses and overall low scoring across the league to open up offenses again. Since then the game has only become increasingly slanted toward giving the offense a bit more of a break on things. 

Yes Bradshaw had an erratic arm and that's generally why he's not so high up on top QB lists despite his 4 rings. That still doesn't mean he was a god-awful passer, nor was he just lucky when taken in context with the era he played in.

Seriously some of your arguments just make you sound like a total homer. I don't even like Bradshaw, but QB rating as a valid argument? Please.

So would you then disregard Tom Brady's QB rating if you where to argue that he is the best QB in the game?

I fail to see how any of my arguments are misguided.  Palmer and Manning can make throws that Brady cannot.  They have stronger more accurate arms then Brady do.  They consistently throw for more yards and tds, and often have a better TD to INT ratio then Brady does. Heck people want Tom Brady to be a great QB because he is a great story.  The amazing sixth round QB who goes in to replace Drew Bledsoe and go on an amazing run to become one of the best QB's ever.    They also play on worse teams they he has, so it is in now way misguided.  Winning is a team accomplishment, no one else on that team gets credit for anything.  Which is actually really funny because it's his defense that often goes out there and puts Brady in good field position, it's his defense that goes out there and makes team go three and out, its his defense that gets clutch turnovers when they need it.  Brady gets credit for being on a great team, and its incredibly stupid that he does.  People take about all those game winning drives in the playoffs that Brady has, which is another fallacy.  Congratulations, Tom Brady can get his team within long field goal range.  Palmer and Brady put up better numbers then Brady does for a reason, they are better.  And Bradshaw is terribly overrated, two more TDs then INts is god awful.  How can you be considered a great QB when you do that and have Franco in the backfield and two HOF wideouts? 

[Vegeta2711]

So would you then disregard Tom Brady's QB rating if you where to argue that he is the best QB in the game?

Yeah. Obviously. According to QB rating, Kurt Warner is better than Joe Montana. Have a fun time bringing that up in any meaningful way.

And Bradshaw is terribly overrated, two more TDs then INts is god awful.  How can you be considered a great QB when you do that and have Franco in the backfield and two HOF wideouts?

And again, I agree he's overrated to some degree by the media.

But seriously I don't know, apparently by winning 4 rings he can't quite be that overrated, although by your arguments that doesn't actually count since he had a great team around him. I mean I expect that argument to explain Baltimore's 2001 season with Dilfer at the helm, but if Bradshaw was really that inferior to other QB's at the time, I'm pretty sure the Steelers would've bothered seeking out a replacement after a number of years. You don't stay somebodies QB for an entire decade unless you've got something going for you.

[The Demon]

So would you then disregard Tom Brady's QB rating if you where to argue that he is the best QB in the game?

Yeah. Obviously. According to QB rating, Kurt Warner is better than Joe Montana. Have a fun time bringing that up in any meaningful way.

And Bradshaw is terribly overrated, two more TDs then INts is god awful.  How can you be considered a great QB when you do that and have Franco in the backfield and two HOF wideouts?

And again, I agree he's overrated to some degree by the media.

But seriously I don't know, apparently by winning 4 rings he can't quite be that overrated, although by your arguments that doesn't actually count since he had a great team around him. I mean I expect that argument to explain Baltimore's 2001 season with Dilfer at the helm, but if Bradshaw was really that inferior to other QB's at the time, I'm pretty sure the Steelers would've bothered seeking out a replacement after a number of years. You don't stay somebodies QB for an entire decade unless you've got something going for you.

The difference is that Joe Montana was great for an entire career, Kurt Warner was "great" for a few years. It is my assertion that QB rating is relevant over a span of many years.    I understand your argument though.  The way the QB rating is set up is screwed up.  It was designed in an era where QBs didn't throw nearly as much as they do now. 

I don't think that they would have.  If you can win with an inferior QB why risk team chemistry or create the distraction.  Bradshaw blows when compared to just about every QB in the HOF.  He is good compared to a lot of other QBs throughout NFL history I suppose.  I think of Bradshaw as a modern day Bulger. 

Basically I don't buy that Brady is this amazing big play QB.  There are to many things that people overlook when they talk about the golden boy.  Everyone forgets about all the rest of the teams play.  They forget taht he had good offensive tools around him, they forget that without Adam Vintaterria (I have no idea how to spell his name) he doesn't win anything.  They seem to forget that his WR's have this amazing ability to be wide open in the playoffs.  He is a very good Qb, but he is not great.  Manning and Palmer can do more on the field, and I still think that if you put either of those two on the Patriots the outcome would be the same.  I think you if you put Brady on the Colts or the Bengals that he wouldn't do as well as those two QBs on their respecitve teams.  I have no problem with Tom Brady getting love, I have no problem with people thinking he is the best QB in the league.  I have a problem with the line of thinking that "his team wins so hes great".  Just my opinion.

[Kowal]

they forget that without Adam Vintaterria (I have no idea how to spell his name) he doesn't win anything.

Adam Vinatieri, the same one who plays for Indianapolis now.  Yeah, you're right, Brady totally sucks this year without him.

This whole argument is ridiculous.  Isn't it enough to call Brady a winning QB and leave it at that?

[The Demon]

they forget that without Adam Vintaterria (I have no idea how to spell his name) he doesn't win anything.

Adam Vinatieri, the same one who plays for Indianapolis now.  Yeah, you're right, Brady totally sucks this year without him.

This whole argument is ridiculous.  Isn't it enough to call Brady a winning QB and leave it at that?

The point was that Brady gets credit for having three rings when he didn't even lead them to a TD to win the game.  He got them within 45 yards.  Just because your a winner qb doesn't make you the best QB, in fact winning should not be placed on the same scale as your phsyical ability and the stats that you put up. 

[Kowal]

Yeah but the point is, who gives a shit?  Arguing about the best QB is exactly like arguing over whether 4 Gush Gat is better than 4 Trinisphere Stax or 4 Fact or Fiction Monoblue. 

Anyway...

This weekend the game that's getting the most press is of course the undefeated Cowboys vs the undefeated Patriots.  Most of the bookies are only giving Dallas +5.  Even with that, anybody interested in picking Dallas?  I actually really wanted them to take it home this week, but after watching them against Buffalo I don't see the Romo/Witten combo getting past 17.  I also don't see the Patriots offensive line doing any worse than 30+ again.

[The Demon]

Yeah but the point is, who gives a shit?  Arguing about the best QB is exactly like arguing over whether 4 Gush Gat is better than 4 Trinisphere Stax or 4 Fact or Fiction Monoblue. 

Anyway...

This weekend the game that's getting the most press is of course the undefeated Cowboys vs the undefeated Patriots.  Most of the bookies are only giving Dallas +5.  Even with that, anybody interested in picking Dallas?  I actually really wanted them to take it home this week, but after watching them against Buffalo I don't see the Romo/Witten combo getting past 17.  I also don't see the Patriots offensive line doing any worse than 30+ again.

The only player on the boys defense that is scary is Demarcus Ware.  The patriots have several players on defense that teams have to gameplan for.  I'll take the Patriots winning by 14....convincingly. 

[MadManiac21]

Domination.

Also, I don't know why you keep saying Brady has a weak arm - he threw 3-4 passes today of 50+ yards with perfect placement. What more do you want?

[Meddling Mike]

So much for the duel in dallas...had my popcorn ready and everything...

Tom Brady hands the other team a quick seven and we STILL manage to win by a 3 touchdown margin! I'll give Dallas some credit, they gave me the first scare of the year by taking the lead in the second half. It was amazing to see the Patriots wake up when they fell behind and bring back their A game. What was Wade Phillips thinking going for the FG down by two TD's in the 4th Quarter?

[kirdape3]

Here's the prime seasons of Bradshaw's career (between 1972 and 1979):

1972: 11-3, loss in AFC Championship Game, 147/308/1887/12/12 passing, 58/347/7 rushing (!)
1973: 10-4, loss in AFC Divisional Game, 89/180/1183/10/15 passing, 34/145/3 rushing (10 games)
1974: 10-3-1, won Super Bowl, 67/148/785/7/8 passing, 34/224/2 rushing (8 games)
1975: 12-2, won Super Bowl, 165/289/2055/18/9 passing, 35/210/3 rushing, Pro Bowl
1976: 10-4, loss in AFC Championship Game, 92/192/1177/10/9 passing, 31/219/3 rushing (10 games)
1977: 9-5, loss in AFC Divisional Game, 162/314/2523/18/19 passing, 31/171/3 rushing
1978: 14-2, won Super Bowl, 207/368/2915/28/20 passing, 32/93/1 rushing, Pro Bowl
1979: 12-4, won Super Bowl, 259/472/3724/26/25 passing, 21/83/0 rushing, Pro Bowl

No quarterback with that winning pedigree would be kept out of the Hall of Fame, especially when he was a true dual threat and was one of the three or four best quarterbacks throughout that entire era.

[Dante]

Ugh.  I think the Bears best offensive options are either

1. Go 3-and-out as soon as possible so they can get Devin Hester 14 punt returns per game

OR

2. Flip the scoreboard to show the other team up by 14 pts.  It's like every time they're down 2 TDs, they open it up and score much more easily.  You think a highly paid coaching staff would notice this and try that earlier.  Maybe it's just me.

Option 1 is probably our best bet though...