Congratulations to Homer J. Fong, the champion of week ten. He notched a 9-4-1 record. All picks are against the spread. The home teams are in caps. Here are my selections. JAGUARS -3 over Chargers, Chiefs +14.5 over COLTS, Raiders +5.5 over VIKINGS, RAVENS +3 over Browns, Steelers -9.5 over JETS, Bucs -3 over FALCONS, BENGALS -3 over Cards, EAGLES -10 over Dolphins, Patriots -16 over BILLS, COWBOYS -10.5 over Redskins, Saints +1 over TEXANS, PACKERS -9.5 over Panthers, LIONS +3 over Giants, Rams -2.5 over NINERS, SEAHAWKS -5.5 over Bears, and, on Monday Night Football, Titans +2 over BRONCOS. Make your pigskin prognostications in the comments thread.

Chargers
COLTS
VIKINGS
Browns
Steelers
Bucs
BENGALS
EAGLES
Patriots
COWBOYS
TEXANS
PACKERS
Giants
NINERS
SEAHAWKS
Titans

JAGUARS
COLTS
VIKINGS
Browns
Steelers
Bucs
BENGALS
EAGLES
Patriots
COWBOYS
Saints
PACKERS
Giants
Rams
Bears

Monday Night

Titans

There is a 14.5 spread in the Chiefs/Colts game? Has the world gone mad? Indy is missing some key players, but jeez.

Ralph, I owe you an apology for my statement that the Giants were superior to the Cowboys.

San Diego
Kansas City
Minnesota
Cleveland
New York (Jets)
Atlanta
Cincinatti
Miami
Buffalo
Dallass
New Orleans
Green Bay
De-Riot
San Francisco
Chicago
Denver

No need to apolgize (up to last Sunday, everyone in New York shared that opinion). With the Colts' injuries, there is only one team that is superior to the Cowboys, your Pats. (Dallas hung with NE for three and a half quarters. I'm hoping that if the teams meet in February, Dallas can hang with NE for four quarters.)

Talking of spreads, I can't believe that the Skins/Boys line is only 10.5. The Dallas passing attack is going to shred a Washington defense missing their best pass rusher, corner and safety.

Homer! You da man!
Jags, Chiefs, Raiders, Browns, Steelers, Falcons, Bengals, Eagles, Pats, Cowboys, Texans, Packers, Giants, Rams, Seahawks, Broncos

"Dallas can hang with NE for four quarters"

No JV team will hang in with the Varsity for four quarters.

Yeah, DC going to get its ass handed to it this weekend. Rub it in, baby.

Sic transit gloria mundi, bitches.

Except for the Pats.

asdf, I don't agree with the widespread opinion that the NFC is much worse than the AFC. I think this is an illusion created simply by the fact that the Pats and Colts happen to both be AFC teams (and I now consider the Cowboys superior to the Colts).

If you discount those two teams, or rather that one team now, how is the NFC markedly worse than the AFC? They both have very good teams (Packers, Cowboys, Steelers, Colts) and stinkers (Dolphins, Rams come to mind).

With limited time, I'll give you one example - Dallas 25, Buffalo 24.

There are more but consider NFC powerhouse Dallas going into lowly AFC Buffalo and just barely squeaking out a win.

Buffalo is lowly? They are over .500, they have won 4 in a row, but for a few ill times kicks they could easily be 7-2, and they are an AFC playoff contender.

"With limited time, I'll give you one example - Dallas 25, Buffalo 24."

To this I respond, Indy 21, San Diego 23.

I'll add that after Romo threw 5 INTs (yet still managed to win the game), most everyone criticized him. After Manning threw 6 INTs (and lost), most everyone was talking about how great he was because he three six picks and still almost won the game.

I havn't checked it, but I'd be willing to bet that the NFC has more wins against the AFC this season than vice versa.

Ben,

Now you're you're getting silly contentious. Are you really trying to say that Buffalo is not a bad team? They had to pull out a last minute win against the lowly Dolphins for crying out loud!! Weak.

Chargers,
Chiefs,
Raiders,
Browns,
Steelers,
Bucs,
Cards,
Dolphins,
Patriots,
Redskins,
Saints,
Panthers,
Giants,
Rams,
Bears,
Titans.

So far the AFC and the NFC have each won 50% of the interconference games. The NFC East and the AFC South have been the strongest divisions. Each are 10 games over .500 against the rest of the League.

"Now you're you're getting silly contentious. Are you really trying to say that Buffalo is not a bad team? They had to pull out a last minute win against the lowly Dolphins for crying out loud!! Weak." - asdf

They had a bad game against Miami, yes. But they are in the AFC playoff race for a wild card. Teams that are in the playoff race are not "lowly". Your definition of what a truly bad team is has been spoiled by the Pats' stratospheric performance since 2001.

You are correct (and I’m ecstatic to say) that, as they have pretty much played flawless football, the Pats have sometimes made it difficult for me to watch other NFL teams play.

Although, thanks in some part to the refs, they did look human when they played the Colts. That won’t be the case next time.

And as long as the league hasn’t given Kraft the word about allegedly “running up the score”, you’ll see Sunday how weak a team the Bills are as the Pats should cover and then some.

Ralphy: I don’t think you can legitimately use that interception comparison between Tony Ro and Manning. If any player has become the darling the league and media it’s Romo. Even when he muffed a key snap in an important game last year he wasn’t pilloried. In fact, it seemed to me that he got a big pass for that to the point where people were feeling bad for him. But, as honorable Fong san said, fame is fleeting. Brady used to be the pretty golden boy of the league, now he’s the king of “running up the score” and he plays on a team run by Satan and that cheats. Tony Ro will have his day.

Doc: I don't think by relying on interconference games one can deduce strength of division. The NFC East, though probably the strongest division in the NFC, plays the AFC East. They're all pretty much guaranteed a loss against the Pats, but the Dolphins and Jets are horrid, and the Bills are a well-coached team without much talent. What if they played the AFC South or the AFC North? In other words, the sample group of interconference games is too limited make any generalizations about overall strength based on it. The AFC North, for instance, plays the absolutely horrible NFC West, a division that has one more win than the Patriots. I think your overall point is an interesting one, though, particularly the .500 record of the conferences against one another. I think the reason people think the AFC is better is that when you look at the BEST teams, most of them are in the AFC. The Pats, Colts, Chargers, and Steelers are all upper echelon teams, and the Jaguars and Titans aren't bad either. In the NFC, it's the Cowboys and Packers, and I'm not so sure how the Packers would fare against many of those AFC powerhouses. In other words, the prejudice against the NFC stems from its weakness at the top.

Chargers
COLTS
VIKINGS
Browns
Steelers
Bucs
BENGALS
EAGLES
Patriots
COWBOYS
Saints
PACKERS
Giants
Rams
SEAHAWKS
Titans

Dan,

The NFC East also plays the NFC North, home to Green Bay (8-1), Detroit (6-2).

That's what I was getting at. Statistically there's likely little difference.

As we have the top team, I use that as a measuring stick.

But the controversy was some fun.

ASDF,

There's no doubt that just about everyone is on the Romo band-wagon now (and when he beats his boyhood idol, Favre, there simply won't be any room left on the wagon). But after that narrow win in Buffalo, people were jumping off left and right. He took a lot of criticism for that game.

As for the snap last season in Seattle, it's fairly obvious from the replay that the ball had been greased. The NFL has all but admitted that it was by creating a new official this season whose sole job is to guard the balls used for field goals and extra points.

Ralph: The NFC North isn't very good, which is the major reason that the Packers are 8-1. The Lions won't make the playoffs, and may not even end above .500. Minnesota is a below average team. Chicago has no offense. They certainly are not as good as the AFC North. Is this supposed to be a bragging point? The NFC East plays the NFC North? Big deal.

No matter how much I kid about the Boyz, the are a very good team and that starts with Tony Ro, who I'm a big fan of. So I regularly root for him and (unless the opponent is the Pats) hope he continues to do well.

I started the last season getting interested in the Boyz because of the soap opera that is Bill Parcells (who can rot in Hell, by the way). But had mixed thoughts about how things would turn out because (gulp) I was one of the last Bledsoe fans. Yes, I know he $uck$, but he always worked hard, was tough and could make things exciting when he wasn't throwing interceptions.

But when Romo replaced him, I knew they had something.

That said, unless it's your team, people tire of organizations that continue excellence and typically love the underdog. So, Romo will have his day.

And that was a good one about the greased ball. Pretty funny.

Exempting the Pats from this discussion, what evidence is there that the AFC is a better conference top to bottom? The Colts (a team Dallas beat last season) were good but have been injured to the point of being, at best, the third best team in the AFC. The second best team, the Steelers, lost to Denver and Arizona, two teams below .500. Do you honestly believe that Pittsburgh would be favored in a game against the Pack on a neutral field? Do you believe that the Jags are superior to the Giants? Where's the superiority?

"Yes, I know he $uck$, but he always worked hard, was tough and could make things exciting when he wasn't throwing interceptions."

What Bledsoe were you watching? He was slow as molasses in the pocket and a whiny person to boot. There was nothing to like about him whatsoever, save that he could throw a ball a country mile. It rarely hit the target, unfortunately. I couldn't stand having that guy QB the Pats, and I was ecstatic when he got injured.

"Do you honestly believe that Pittsburgh would be favored in a game against the Pack on a neutral field? " - Ralph

I agree that the AFC is not significantly better than the NFC, but...yes. The teams are extremely similar to one another with the exception that the Stillers actually have a quality running game. Pittsburgh over Green Bay.

"I think the reason people think the AFC is better is that when you look at the BEST teams, most of them are in the AFC. The Pats, Colts, Chargers, and Steelers are all upper echelon teams, and the Jaguars and Titans aren't bad either." - Dan

The Chargers are an upper echelon team? They are 5-4.

Ralph: Because the Steelers are better than the Packers.

Ben: The Chargers are one of the most talented teams in the NFL. They just have a poor coach (which, of course, is a problem). They were the favorite to win the Super Bowl last year going into the playoffs, and their roster hasn't changed that much. I think you might be getting to caught up in records. They are 5-4. Is there a better 5-4 team?

If anyone is interested, here are the odds for teams to win the Super Bowl:

http://www.nsawins.com/super-bowl-odds.shtml

I have never seen this before, but the Pats have 1:3 odds. In other words, put down $3 to win $1. The Steelers are 7-1 and the Pack is 12-1, so obviously Vegas doesn't agree with Ralph assessment of the Pack over the Steelers.

"Ben: The Chargers are one of the most talented teams in the NFL. They just have a poor coach (which, of course, is a problem). They were the favorite to win the Super Bowl last year going into the playoffs, and their roster hasn't changed that much. I think you might be getting to caught up in records. They are 5-4. Is there a better 5-4 team?" - Dan Flynn

Yea, but saying they have all the talent but the coaching is like saying they have all the talent but the QB. It still keeps them from being an elite team.

The Steelers have beaten several teams with 5-4 records. So have the Pack, but they've also beaten the Giants. There just isn't any reason to believe that Pittsburgh is better than Green Bay (someone said Green Bay doesn't run the ball; the back they've turned to the last three games, Ryan Grant, has rushed for 278 yards during that time).

You keep citing lines and odds. These are not good indicators of superiority. Consider the fact that the lines on games change due to betting. If team A opens at +10 and a ton of people take the points so that there are now a lot more people betting on team A than their opponent, team B, the bet-takers move the line in the direction of team B in an attempt to get as many people betting on B as A. If it lines and odds were objective indicators of superiority, they wouldn't change.

Ralph, Green Bay's last three games were against Denver, Kansas City, and Minnesota. These are hardly run stopping teams.

The Steelers however, do stop the run, fiercely. I would put down money on a Pittsburgh win if they played.

You may not remember it Ben but many attribute the building of the successful Patriots franchise that we are enjoying today to Drew Bledsoe.

In his 8 1/8 seasons with the Pats, he was the reason that many fans came back to the Pats as he played well enough to keep them competitive. With his best season being in 96’, he threw for 27 tds and 4000 yards ending the season with an ill-fated trip to the Superbowl.

Although he was the prototypical quarterback having size and superior arm strength, he did not possess the accuracy or the field vision (thus too many interceptions) needed to have him considered one of the elites at that position. In fact, after leaving the Pats, he had a good first year for the Bills, throwing 24 tds and for the Boyz where he threw 23. In both cases, it all went down hill from there.

And I couldn’t agree more that Jets linebacker Mo Lewis should be inducted into the Patriot’s Hall of Fame for what he did which led to Brady getting his chance.

Interesting that Bledsoe, the overall number one draft pick in 93’, would set the stage for two current day qbs who were essentially no name low rounders who will likely be Hall of Famers even though he himself will never see it.

One more thing: slow as molasses? Yes. Whiner? Absolutely not. He was an adult professional who never threw a teammate or a coach under a bus.

Like to change my pick from Giants to LIONS if possible, Dan.

"Like to change my pick from Giants to LIONS if possible, Dan."

I think this is a tough game to pick. The Lions are at home, and getting a field goal. Their defense, especially the line, plays very well at home (Shaun Rogers is a beast). And when their offense is clicking, it's one of the best in the NFL (talent wise, Roy Williams is as good as any receiver). But their O-line is mediocre, and I can see Kitna having to run for his life most of the afternoon (the Giants have one of the best pass-rushes in the game). I'm sticking with New York, but I'm tempted to follow you and switch my pick.

Whatever.

Any of you that know me know that my win this week is PROOF that none of you know wtf you're talking about.

Don't underestimate us Homer. We realize that you don't know wtf you're talking about.

Ralph, you wrote: "Do you honestly believe that Pittsburgh would be favored in a game against the Pack on a neutral field?" Then, in response to your query about who would be "favored" in a hypothetical game on a neutral field, I cited odds showing that Vegas thinks the Steelers are a better bet to win the Super Bowl than the Pack. Then you responded: "You keep citing lines and odds. These are not good indicators of superiority." You brought up the whole subject of "who would be favored," not me. I would also suggest that lines are very good indicators of who will win the game. Football experts decide lines (I get all my lines from footballlocks if anyone is interested), and then the democracy of the betting market place corrects the line (by pouring money on one team) if the line is out of wack. After this week, perform an experiment: see what the record of favorites and underdogs were, not against the line, but what their records were on the week. There's a reason the game is played, but favorites usually win, not necessarily cover, but win the game outright.

I think people think the Steelers are better because they've been an upper-echelon team (with a few bumps in the road) for more than a decade. The Pack, on the other hand, appears to a lot of people as one of those teams who came out of nowhere. They want to see them tested before they will confirm them the genuine article.

"I think this is a tough game to pick. The Lions are at home, and getting a field goal. Their defense, especially the line, plays very well at home (Shaun Rogers is a beast). And when their offense is clicking, it's one of the best in the NFL (talent wise, Roy Williams is as good as any receiver). But their O-line is mediocre, and I can see Kitna having to run for his life most of the afternoon (the Giants have one of the best pass-rushes in the game). I'm sticking with New York, but I'm tempted to follow you and switch my pick." - Ralph

I agree with you. But the way I see it, the Giants have a mediocre offense against a defense that plays extremely well at home. Yes, Kitna will probably have to scramble a lot on Sunday, but the Lions still have a powerhouse O, with New York not putting much on the board. Will be enough to beat the Giants by more than 3, though not a whole lot, I think.

Wow, the Colts just barely won against the Kansas City Chiefs. How bad is this team hurting?

Well, my hat's off to the Skins. They took Dallas to the wire. Is that the first time that Moss, Randle El, and McCardell have played together this season? Together with Cooley, they can put some pressure on a pass-defense. Thank God for T.O. I was glad just to win this one. I suppose there are worse things than squeaking by the Skins... like losing on over-time to the Jets.

There really is no other story in Professional Football today, is there?

Patriots. Nuff said.

And how about that over .500 Buffalo team at home, eh?!

When I said weak, I meant weak.

I'm tyring to put my finger on why this Pats team is scoring like they are. I'm sure the Pats homers on this board will disagree, but when I compare them to the two greatest offenses I have ever watched, the 1998 Vikings and the 1999 Rams, the Pats' skill position players don't measure up.

Compare them with the Rams. While the Pats' Moss is more talented than the Rams best receiver, Isaac Bruce, Holt and Az-Hakim were better than Welker and Stallworth. But even if that's disputed, the Rams have the ultimate trump card in Marshall Faulk. That season Faulk ran for 1381 yards, and had 1048 receiving yards. The Pats' top three runners (Maroney, Morris, Faulk) have a combined 1005 yards rushing this season. So as a group they'll likely just surpass Faulk's rushing yards. Of course he had another 1000 yards receiving. Finally, Brady's stats are off the charts. But this has to be attributed to his receivers, doesn't it? Has he ever come close to these numbers? He's likely going to double up his second best season. And it's not like he's throwing unbelievable balls. For the most part, he's throwing it up, and Randy goes and gets it. Or he's throwing to Randy with no defender in sight.

What about the Vikings. The Pats' Moss is a better receiver than his younger self (though he's not quite the speedster he was), Welker and Stallworth aren't even in the same zip code as Cris Carter and Jake Reed (Carter is a Hall of Famer, and one of the best receivers to ever play the game; and before the Moss's arrival, Reed had been a 1000-yard receiver four straight seasons). And Robert Smith rushed for nearly 1200 yards that season.

So why is this Pat's team putting up better numbers than these teams? Could it be because they're running up the score much more than those teams did?

Your jealously is making you nuts Ralph. You are witnessing sports history and you're so busy justifying why it is that your team has a hard time beating another team that they should have beaten handily that you resort to historical comparisons to denigrate what the Pat's are doing?!

A simple admission of the Patriot's greatness would do.

And yes I am a homer. How could I not be a homer with the team that we have. It’s easy to admit. What’s your excuse?

ASDF,

I think we are witnessing greatness from NE. I watched every Pats game that's been on because I don't want to miss a historic season. They are far and away the best team in the NFL. No doubt.

Are they the greatest offense ever? Are they the best team ever? They havn't won a ring yet, so this dicussion is premature, but I'm willing to have it now. I think the answer to both questions is negative. I think the greatest offense ever was the 1999 Rams, and the best team ever was the 1992 Boys. Do the 2007 Pats deserve to be in the discussion? Absolutely. But that doesn't make them the best.

As for your claim that the AFC is a better conference than the NFC, I think the evidence is mounting against it. After the Pats, the next two best teams are in the NFC (the Steelers lost to the Jets!). And with the Colts' injuries, I think fourth place would be a tough pick between the Giants, Colts and Steelers.

"And how about that over .500 Buffalo team at home, eh?!

When I said weak, I meant weak." - asdf

But they aren't. The Patriots are just that good. It didn't help that the Bills were out their franchise back, too. Marshawn Lynch killed the Pats last time they played the Bills, he probably would have made for a closer score.

"I think the greatest offense ever was the 1999 Rams, and the best team ever was the 1992 Boys." - Ralph

Uh what? There is absolutely no way the 1992 Cowboys match up to the '85 Bears. And should the Pats win this year, the '07 Patriots. Having the most talented individual at any given position across NFL history is not what is important. Whether or not Chris Carter was miles ahead of where Wes Welker is as an individual is irrelevant. What matters for building a successful team is finding the right guys for your system and then running them with smart, quality, play calling. That is what the Patriots do best, and it is the reason why the '07 Patriots would handily defeat any other squad in NFL history. Barring some freak event where they do not win the Super Bowl, they will almost certainly go down as the NFL's greatest team.

As a side note, did you honestly just accuse somebody else of being a homer?

I'll say it again so that you can understand it: they score because THEY CAN! And if other PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL teams can't stop them, the score will likely be lopsided.

And, again last night (as happened against the Cowboys) their fourth string fullback, from Navy no less, scored!!

Are they trying to break records? You bet. So the league and the fans will have to deal with it.

"Are they the greatest offense ever? Are they the best team ever? They havn't won a ring yet, so this dicussion is premature, but I'm willing to have it now. I think the answer to both questions is negative."

Talk about a homer! You’re ready to crown the Boyz with a Super Bowl championship every f’ing week, but you can’t concede that it’s a pretty good bet that the Pats will win the Lombardi this year. So, nobody else can tout the fact that their team is pretty darn good? Instead you attempt some bull$hit historical discussion about who the best teams were.

Ben, last night, it wouldn't have mattered if the Bills had Jim Brown and O.J. Simpson with a knife in the backfield.

If the Patriots had wanted to score 80 points, they could have.

As Dan has said before, the NFL isn't fantasy football. The 1992 Boys were primarily a ball-control offense. They had the best O-line in NFL history. One of the greatest RBs in NFL history. And the best possession receiver in NFL history. So they didn't routinely score 40 points against opponents. Instead, the mauled defenses with 8-minute drives ending in TDs.

So the Greatest Show on Turf couldn't have averaged 42 points a game if they'd wanted to? Please.

This season, the (justifiable) attention the Pats's offense is getting is overshadowing a pretty amazing offensive performance by the Boys. Romo's 27 TDs through 10 games equals Marino's 10-game mark the season he threw for 48 TDs (presently the second best total ever). Romo's 2848 yards passing is only 200 yards behind Brady's total of 3059, putting Romo on pace for fourth all-time (Brady's on pace for second all-time; his 10-game total is just off Marion's 1984 pace). And there's talk that Glenn will be healthy by the Packers game. With Glenn back, Dallas can score with NE. Romo's season to date is proof of that.

Replace "Marion" with "Marino."

A 5-4 division foe goes into the division leader’s houz and barely gets beat by five.

A 5-4 division foe hosts the division leader and looses 46.

In the first game, the division leader scores four passing touchdowns in the game to barely hang on.

In the second game, the division leader scores a rushing touchdown and four passing touchdowns in the first half.

Who's more impressive?

"Any given Sunday." It's Romo's only bad game (and it wasn't as bad as Manning's 6-pick loss to the mighty Chargers). Even with that performance, Romo is having one of the greatest seasons in the history of NFL QBs.

By the way, John. Anyone who claims that Brady and Moss are better than Montana and Rice should be fired from his job. Talk about hype.

Ralph, with all due respect, you sound like a numbskull.

Which part? That Romo is having a historic (i.e., top-five) season is a statistical fact. And Owens' season is comparable to Moss's. The difference between the offenses is that, in addition to Moss, Brady has two other good receivers. If Romo had the same (that is, if in addition to Witten, he'd had Glenn), it is reasonable to project numbers similar to Brady's.

"Ben, last night, it wouldn't have mattered if the Bills had Jim Brown and O.J. Simpson with a knife in the backfield.

If the Patriots had wanted to score 80 points, they could have." - asdf

Yes but the Bills could have scored points as well. The Pats D is weak against the run and Lynch is a beast. Don't get me wrong the score still would have been ridiculously lopsided, but again, not because the Bills are a bad football team. Because our boys are just that good.

"So the Greatest Show on Turf couldn't have averaged 42 points a game if they'd wanted to? Please." - Ralph

The 2001 Patriots defeated the greatest show on turf. I'm to believe the 2007 Patriots aren't better than them?

"By the way, John. Anyone who claims that Brady and Moss are better than Montana and Rice should be fired from his job. Talk about hype." - Ralph

And should Brady break the record for single season TD passes, and Moss break Rice's record for single season TD catches, what will you say then? Both are on pace to do those things.

"The 2001 Patriots defeated the greatest show on turf. I'm to believe the 2007 Patriots aren't better than them?"

I never said those Rams teams were better than this season's Pats. I said that the 1999 Rams were the best offense ever. I also said they could have scored more points if they had been classless.

"And should Brady break the record for single season TD passes, and Moss break Rice's record for single season TD catches, what will you say then? Both are on pace to do those things."

Again, the NFL isn't fantasy football.

Couple of more things before I gladly leave this discussion.

Ralph, you keep saying that the NFL isn't fantasy football. Yet, you're the optimal keeper and purveyor of fantasy football-like quotes to make your point.

Ben, I will admit the Pat's defense have had a weakness against the run. But, didn't you get the impression that the Pats (after scoring 35 points in the first half) throttled it back in the second half? So my contention is that even if Lynch had played and scored a couple of times to make it a game, the Pats would have bulldozed the Bills and just scored more points.

asdf,

I have always qualified my remarks about stats. Romo is having a great statistical year. He has a chance to finish in the top-four all time in yards, and the top-three all-time for TDs. If he does will I call him the third or fourth best QB of all time? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. Another example: Dickerson has the single-season rushing record. Do I believe that Dickerson was the greatest runner ever? No. Emmitt is the all-time leading rusher. Do I believe that he is the greatest runner ever? No. I reserve that title for Barry Sanders. Why? Because I watched him play.

Let me ask you this. If you could play this Pats team against itself, but switch one of the Brady's and Moss's out for Montana and Rice, which team do you think would have the edge offensively?

Only time will tell. But, so far, in ten games, Brady and Moss have to be considered the best quarterback / wideout match in the game at any time. And if they both stay upright, they will continue to prove it.

And this just confirms what I've said about the Super Bowl last year with regard to the indisputable fact that, given a Brady / Moss or even a Brady / Stallworth combination the Patriots would have gotten there and won it going away.

Yes, it still smarts.

This season's Pats was definitely a better passing team that last season's, and I think the offense is better and a lot more explosive. But don't get too carried away trashing last season's offense. You had a very good ground game: Dillon and Maroney combined for nearly 1600 yards and 19 TDs in the regular season. This season Maroney and Morris have combined for 800 yards and 4 TDs.

And last season's Colts team was great. Harrison and Wayne were both elite receivers. It would be like if opposite Moss the Pats had Chad Johnson.

"I never said those Rams teams were better than this season's Pats. I said that the 1999 Rams were the best offense ever. I also said they could have scored more points if they had been classless." - Ralph

Classless? The football community brought this entirely on themselves, 100%. After tapegate they questioned whether the Patriots deserved their three super bowl rings, and whether they were capable of winning without cheating. Do you honestly believe that the Patriots were not capable of putting up more than 38 points on the New York Jets in week 1? Or on the Chargers in week 2? They could have scored as many as they wanted against either. They did not start running up the score until after they were taunted by the rest of the NFL.

Now you are getting your answer and don't like it? Cry more please. Maybe the football community will think about the possible ramifications before they decide to tug on superman's cape a second time.

"Again, the NFL isn't fantasy football." - Ralph

The purpose of a QB-WR combo is to score TDs by throwing. The combo which accomplishes this the most is, by definition, the best QB-WR combo.

"Let me ask you this. If you could play this Pats team against itself, but switch one of the Brady's and Moss's out for Montana and Rice, which team do you think would have the edge offensively?" - Ralph

The one with Brady and Moss. Brady is a mere 30 and already he is breathing down Montana's neck for best QB of all time status. Barring injuries, he will have shown himself to be clearly better than Montana was by the end of his career.

How does winning this season prove that the Super Bowls won in past seasons were legitimate? Regardless of what the Pats do this season, there will always be a question about their other trophies. Obviously, if the Pats offense knew before each snap which play the opposing defense was running, and they knew that because they filmed the other team's signal callers, then their wins would be illegitimate. It sure seems like they were doing just that. The reason they got caught is because a former Pats assistant coach was an assistant coach for the Jets. He informed the Jets of that practice, and New England got busted. In other words, it didn't start with the Jets or even this season. Of course, we'll never know for sure since Goodell destroyed the evidence. But he must have not liked what he saw since he took the Pats first round pick and levied three quarters of a million dollars in fines.

So the Pats are cheaters and they're angry about being caught, so the rest of the league has to suffer their classlessness. I say suffer, because no one can stop them. This team is that good. (Though if I were a head coach getting throttled late in the game, and Brady was still in throwing the ball, I'd line up in punt block formation every down, and tee off on Brady. I'm guessing he'd be out of the game one way or another pretty quickly.)

So Eric Dickerson is the greatest running back of all time, right? Or is it Emmitt Smith?

I don't think football coaches or people who deal with professional athletes for a living think the same way most whiny jilted fans do.

Every coach or ex-coach/commentator that I've heard, to a man, have no problem with how Belichick comports himself or how he manages his team.

They may not like him personally, but if the shoe was on the other foot they would likely do the same thing that BB is doing.

And that includes Dallas' beloved Jimmy Johnson.

There have been a few. Steve Young complained about it on Countdown. Mark Schlereth said the Mike and Mike Show that he thought is wasn't the right way to play the game Wade Phillips implied that it was classless when he said in response to a question that the most he's ever been embarrased as a coach is when Buddy Ryan called a fake kneel-down against the Cowboys in a game that was already decided. There have been others, but I can't remember who they were off the top of my head.

Others who have said they don't have a problem with it aren't believable. Parcells said that, but he never ran up the score. I remeber several occasions when he was with Dallas when he turned the ball over on downs rather than kick a field goal (and he would have never dreamed of passsing for a first down). I just can't believe that Gibbs wasn't irritated by what the Pats did.

I remember a game against Green Bay a few years back when Reggie White was still playing. They were getting beat badly by Dallas, and the Boys had driven the field on running plays late in the fourth quarter. Dallas ended up kicking a field goal because the place-kicker had already kicked six field goals, and seven would set the record. He kicked and made it, and then there was a fight on the field instigated by White. In the postgame he said he didn't give a damn whether a record was on the line or not, it showed disrespect. I'm betting that's how most players feel.

Don't mean ex-player/commentators. Mean specifically coaches. You know, the guys who know what's going on.

Schlereth is a dick and Young has obviously had way too many concussions.

Here's the question: Would these other coaches who say they have no problem with it, e.g., Parcells and Gibbs, do it themselves. No. Why not? Is there any other reason than that they think it's classless? So regardless of what they say, they think it's classless.

Now, thinking it's classless, and willing to to something about it are two different things. I'm still holding out hope for the Eagles, Steelers and Giants. Brady needs the equivalent of a flagarant foul for trying to dunk in a blowout. And those are just the teams to give it to him.

Once again Ralph, you prove you're just a jealous a-hole. Why, oh why, do I bother?

Let me take back that crude comment. But when people allude to justifying an injury to Brady or any further action against Belichick in retribution for this absolutely foolish notion that the Pats are somehow tainted because of a commonly done innocuous event, it makes me nuts.

And with the way this team is playing, it makes anybody who keeps bringing it up sound stupid. Really.

I'm not jealous. I've been where you are now (1992-1995), and I've got a 9-1 team favored to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl. That said, I may indeed by an a-hole.

"How does winning this season prove that the Super Bowls won in past seasons were legitimate? Regardless of what the Pats do this season, there will always be a question about their other trophies." - Ralph

No intellectually honest person can question their trophies, since the tapes were sent in to the NFL and no further evidence was uncovered. Unless you have launched an independent investigation that has found new evidence, the taping practice lasted for two plays in one game.

"Of course, we'll never know for sure since Goodell destroyed the evidence. But he must have not liked what he saw since he took the Pats first round pick and levied three quarters of a million dollars in fines." - Ralph

He gave out those penalties before the Patriots sent the rest of the tape in. No further penalty was given. Kindly have level of familiarity with the most basic facts about the case before you make a pronouncement on it.

As for destroying the tape, unless you are arguing that the NFL as an organization, going all the way up to the commissioner, is deliberately colluding with the Patriots to help them avoid a penalty for cheating, they reviewed the tape and found nothing. If you are asserting that, you will need evidence for that claim as well.

"So the Pats are cheaters and they're angry about being caught, so the rest of the league has to suffer their classlessness. I say suffer, because no one can stop them. This team is that good. (Though if I were a head coach getting throttled late in the game, and Brady was still in throwing the ball, I'd line up in punt block formation every down, and tee off on Brady. I'm guessing he'd be out of the game one way or another pretty quickly.)" -Ralph

The NFL community said that the Patriots couldn't win without cheating. Now the Patriots are showing that, in fair play, there isn't another decent team in the league compared to them. And of course, most of the community is crying about it like little girls. I hardly sympathize. I fully acknowledge that the Patriots are doing everything they can to absolutely embarrass every opponent they play and I fully support the practice.But I understand the frustration. The Patriots did, after all, make your Cowboys look like CFL level talent.It's hard knowing that no matter how hard your team works, it has no chance of being better than a Super Bowl also ran.

"So Eric Dickerson is the greatest running back of all time, right? Or is it Emmitt Smith?" - Ralph

Smith is the NFL's all time rushing leader, so he is the greatest back of all time.

"There have been a few. Steve Young complained about it on Countdown. " - Ralph

Then Bill Parcells called him out on the fact that not only did the 49ers get caught cheating during their dynasty years, they ran up the score as well, exposing him as the hypocrite he is.

"Here's the question: Would these other coaches who say they have no problem with it, e.g., Parcells and Gibbs, do it themselves. No. Why not? Is there any other reason than that they think it's classless? So regardless of what they say, they think it's classless." - Ralph

Yes, there is another reason, which you are dodging. That the NFL community never widely agreed upon the notion that they deserved none of their success, and that they were unable to win in a fair fight. If you assert that you do not believe they would have run up the score under those circumstances, it will have become pretty clear that you are just a brazenly dishonest person.

"Now, thinking it's classless, and willing to to something about it are two different things. I'm still holding out hope for the Eagles, Steelers and Giants. Brady needs the equivalent of a flagarant foul for trying to dunk in a blowout. And those are just the teams to give it to him." - Ralph

This assertion makes one thing clear. You have no ethical problem with cheating. You have no motivation other than pure jealousy.

"Smith is the NFL's all time rushing leader, so he is the greatest back of all time."

Are you sure? By that logic there's no way that Brady or Moss could be considered the best of all time no matter what they do this season. For whatever they do, they will still be behind the career numbers of Montana and Rice (Brady may one day pass Montana, but Moss will never pass Rice). So, for your position to be consistent, Dickerson must be the greatest back of all time. After all, he is the single-season leader in yards. Of course LT is the single-season leader in TDs. Maybe he's the greatest ever. Or maybe they're both the greatest ever. How's that sound?

Here's a question for you: Why did the Pats film the signal calls of opposing defenses?

Ben,

I don't think it's a question of intellectual dishonesty with Ralph (unless he's truly serious about what he writes).

And although he makes really stupid comments, he's obviously not a stupid person. So I think it's more goading for the purpose of entertainment, plain and simple.

With the reality that his Boyz are not even close in the running to be the best team in football, his only outlet is to make beezarre claims and hope to get a reaction.

It has been entertaining.

"Are you sure? By that logic there's no way that Brady or Moss could be considered the best of all time no matter what they do this season. For whatever they do, they will still be behind the career numbers of Montana and Rice (Brady may one day pass Montana, but Moss will never pass Rice). So, for your position to be consistent, Dickerson must be the greatest back of all time. After all, he is the single-season leader in yards. Of course LT is the single-season leader in TDs. Maybe he's the greatest ever. Or maybe they're both the greatest ever. How's that sound?" - Ralph

We were talking about Brady and Moss as a QB/receiver combo, not about Brady or Moss as lone individuals. As an individual Rice is the best ever.

"Here's a question for you: Why did the Pats film the signal calls of opposing defenses?" - Ralph

With intention to use them to break the rules, obviously. But they were caught, and the evidence states that that is the first time they did it.

"And although he makes really stupid comments, he's obviously not a stupid person. So I think it's more goading for the purpose of entertainment, plain and simple." - asdf

Wouldn't that also be intellectual dishonesty?

P.S: However, barring injuries, Brady will surpass Montana and retire as individually the best QB of all time.

If he's serious about what he says, I think it would be. But I don't think he is and making sport at this point. Either way, he's typically wrong anyway.

My understanding, and it's the only explanation that makes sense, is that the Pats used video for two reasons:

1. To get in the head of the opposing coaches and make them waste time gameplanning for stupid things.

2. They were attempting not to steal signals, which is nearly impossible with signals changing and with multiple coaches sending dummy signals, but to ana!yze tendencies with regard to how fast defensive coordinators got their signals in. This information would work to the Patriots advantage in going to a no-huddle offense, for instance. If the Pats knew a team took a long time to send in signals, they could go to a no-huddle and screw them up.

Well, I won't dignify your libelous speculation about my motives with a response.

If the best individual QB of all time threw most of his passes to the best individual receiver of all time, aren't they the best combo of all time? Or is there some special combo stat I'm unaware of?

You claim that the evidence indicates that the Jets game was the first time the Pats recorded an opponent's signals. This is manifestly false. The former Pats assistant coach who is presently a Jets assistant coach told the Jets off to what the Pats were up. That's how they got caught. How could he do that unless New England had done it the previous season when he was on their staff?

"Barring injuries, Brady will surpass Montana and retire as individually the best QB of all time."

It's still not clear to me what your definition of "best of all time" is. Is it all-time passing yards. Brady is currently at 24,623 yards. That's not even in the top 50. To catch Montana he needs another 16,000 yards. Of course, Montana is only 9th all time in passing yards. No. 1 is Marino at 61,361 yards. So Brady only needs 36,738 yards. Brady is currently on pace to have 4,894 passing yards this season. If he has seven more seasons just like the one he's having, he'll pass Marino. Good luck. Speaking of Brady's pace, he's not on pace to pass Marino's single-season record of 5,084 yards.

Brady will almost definitely pass Manning's single-season TD record. But he's only got 185 for his career. That's only 248 TDs behind Favre. If Favre's career ended tomorrow, Brady would need four more 60-TD seasons just to get close. Good luck.

Dan,

1. To get into the other coaches heads, the other coaches would have to know that they were doing it. This doesn't seem to have been the case.

2. Going no huddle to catch a slow signaling defense off guard would only work the first play they did it (unless the other team were simply unable to get the calls in faster which is unlikely). After that first play, the calls would come in quicker, eliminating the advantage. That seems like a lot of effort for a very small payoff.

It is difficult to steal signals, but not impossible, especially if you have video of the signals. It would be very hard to coordinate the dummy callers in such a way that their false signals would give the appearance of being consistent with the play (for instance, the same false signal could not be used for differnt plays without giving it away). A careful ana1ysis could allow the Pats to identify the true play-caller.

"If the best individual QB of all time threw most of his passes to the best individual receiver of all time, aren't they the best combo of all time? Or is there some special combo stat I'm unaware of?" - Ralph

I didn't assert that Moss was the best individual receiver of all time. I said that Moss and Brady as a combo are better than Montana and Rice as a combo. As individuals, I believe that Rice is better than Moss and that in the end Brady will surpass Montana.

"You claim that the evidence indicates that the Jets game was the first time the Pats recorded an opponent's signals. This is manifestly false. The former Pats assistant coach who is presently a Jets assistant coach told the Jets off to what the Pats were up. That's how they got caught. How could he do that unless New England had done it the previous season when he was on their staff?" - Ralph

By catching them doing it? Either provide evidence, which the NFL was unable to find, of previous cheating, or I will assume you have retracted your assertion.

"It's still not clear to me what your definition of "best of all time" is. Is it all-time passing yards. Brady is currently at 24,623 yards. That's not even in the top 50. To catch Montana he needs another 16,000 yards. Of course, Montana is only 9th all time in passing yards. No. 1 is Marino at 61,361 yards. So Brady only needs 36,738 yards. Brady is currently on pace to have 4,894 passing yards this season. If he has seven more seasons just like the one he's having, he'll pass Marino. Good luck. Speaking of Brady's pace, he's not on pace to pass Marino's single-season record of 5,084 yards." - Ralph

When Montana is said to be the best, what is usually cited is the fact that he was a 4 time Super Bowl champion and 3 time Super Bowl MVP. If Brady passed more than that (ie won more than four super bowls and was a super bowl MVP at least four times) then he would have in my opinion surpassed Montana.

Btw, it is more than once now that you have indicated you believe that a football team is nothing more than the sum of its talent. Earlier you said that the 1998 Minnesota Vikings were the best offense of all time, and cited that they had some better offensive players at key positions. This is of course entirely irrelevant, because what matters for building the best offense is not having the best players, but having the best system and the players that fit that system optimally. Now you have said that there is no way you can have the best QB & the best WR and not have the best QB-WR combo of all time. The same as above applies. If this is what you believe then I can only assume you have never played football.

So why do you believe that Brady and Moss are the best combo ever?

You're missing the part where the former Pats assistant coach informed his new team, the Jets, that New England would be filming their signals. Either he was psychic or he knew about it from his days with New England.

In the NFL, the system is subordinate to the players.

I'm from Texas. Everyone here plays football throuh junior-high. I went to a small private school, so I got to play in high-school. What does that have to do with knowledge of the game. Have you ever heard Emmitt Smith's "ana1ysis" of the NFL? It's terrible. Yet by your count he's the greatest runner ever. I guess he should also be the greatest commentator ever. But guess what, he's not.

"So why do you believe that Brady and Moss are the best combo ever?

You're missing the part where the former Pats assistant coach informed his new team, the Jets, that New England would be filming their signals. Either he was psychic or he knew about it from his days with New England." - Ralph

Cite a source for that assertion please.

If Moss breaks the catches for TDs record, the combo will be the best ever because it will be the best at achieving the objective of scoring touchdowns. I thought that would be fairly obvious.

"In the NFL, the system is subordinate to the players.

I'm from Texas. Everyone here plays football throuh junior-high. I went to a small private school, so I got to play in high-school. What does that have to do with knowledge of the game. Have you ever heard Emmitt Smith's "ana1ysis" of the NFL? It's terrible. Yet by your count he's the greatest runner ever. I guess he should also be the greatest commentator ever. But guess what, he's not." - Ralph

I suggested that having played the game is necessary to having a basic knowledge of it. I didn't suggest that having played the game meant you knew everything there was to know about it.

And no, the system is not subordinate to the players in the NFL. If that was the case, Moss would have been as good in Oakland as he is in New England.

Typo. "Could have been as good in Oakland", not "Would have been as good".

Ralph: I think you, and many, many other people, have gone X-Files on cameragate. Just think of how good the Patriots could have been this year had they continued to use their sideline camera!

Norv Turner, in the Charger-Patriots game earlier this year, did not hand out printed gameplans to his team until hours prior to the game because of the Pats' embodiment of Lombardi's maxim. That's a concrete example of Bellicek getting inside another coach's head. He affected how another team prepares for him. He made them alter their routine.

In the interest of getting this thread over 100 comments . . .

Dan, Ben-T, and ASDF, you are all getting OWNED by Ralph, the way the Pats are owning opposing defenses.

Keep at it Ralph, don't take any crap from these Pats fans, they really need to get a grip w/ reality. In fact, Boston sports fans in general just need to get a grip. They are making themselves seem like sports fans from Philly these days.

"If Moss breaks the catches for TDs record, the combo will be the best ever because it will be the best at achieving the objective of scoring touchdowns. I thought that would be fairly obvious."

You mean the single-season record, then. Rice caught 22 TDs in a season, Manning threw for 49 TDs in a season, so if Moss and Brady surpass those individual totals, they'll be the best combo ever? A few questions. (1) You said earlier that Emmitt Smith was the greatest NFL running back because he was the all-time leader in career rushing yards (he also has the most career rushing TDs). But now you're saying that Brady and Moss will be the greatest NFL QB/WR combo if they both break the single-season records. To be consistent, shouldn't you say that Dickerson or LT (or both) is the greatest RB? (2) Do Brady and Moss have to share the title "greatest" because, while they'll break the single-season TD records, they won't break the single-season yards records (Rice had 1,848, and Marino had 5,084. (3) How is this definition of greatest combo consitent with your claim that Brady would be the greatest if he passed Marino in rings and Super Bowl MVPs? If that's the measure, then won't you agree that Aikman is a better QB than Marino, Elway, Favre, and Manning? After all, Aikman's won three Super Bowls and was MVP in one of them.

"And no, the system is not subordinate to the players in the NFL. If that was the case, Moss would have been as good in Oakland as he is in New England."

Who was Moss's QB in Oakland? Who were his fellow receivers? How good was his O-line?

3 Should read "How is this definition of greatest combo consitent with your claim that Brady would be the greatest if he passed Montana in rings and Super Bowl MVPs?"

Figured out what he was cookin' a while ago. But, it has been entertaining so I've carried it on.

And I love talking about how great Boston sports teams are. Especially our most excellent professional football team.

Ben-T,

From last weeks NFL power rankings....

"Of the Bills' five wins this season, four have come despite scoring less than 20 points. That doesn't exactly inspire much confidence going against Sunday night's opponent -- the Patriots. Say goodbye to that winning streak."

This is a good team? I think they had Lynch for some of those games.

Smell what the Ralph is cookin' .

Thanks Batman. I'm doing what I can to make Boston fans tolerable. My ultimate reward will be when the Boys and Mavs get rings this season. By the way, it looks like the C's won't simply walk through the Eastern Conference; they lost to a very good Orlando team a couple of days ago. You Garnett worshipers got to see a real PF in Dwight Howard.

Anyway. I think I've set Ben-T straight, and provided asdf with enough entertainment, so while I reserve the right to refute new claims, the defense rests.

One more thing for Ben-T. I misremembered the radio report I heard when the story first broke. It wasn't a Jets assistant who used to be a Pats assistant, it was the Jets head coach, Eric Mangini, who used to be an assistant under Belichick. Mangini knew the Pats were cheating because he used to be a co-conspirator. Here's one of many media reports on it:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/2007/09/13/2007-09-13_manginis_aboutface_on_spying_burns_belic-1.html?print=1

"You mean the single-season record, then. Rice caught 22 TDs in a season, Manning threw for 49 TDs in a season, so if Moss and Brady surpass those individual totals, they'll be the best combo ever? A few questions. (1) You said earlier that Emmitt Smith was the greatest NFL running back because he was the all-time leader in career rushing yards (he also has the most career rushing TDs). But now you're saying that Brady and Moss will be the greatest NFL QB/WR combo if they both break the single-season records. To be consistent, shouldn't you say that Dickerson or LT (or both) is the greatest RB? (2) Do Brady and Moss have to share the title "greatest" because, while they'll break the single-season TD records, they won't break the single-season yards records (Rice had 1,848, and Marino had 5,084. (3) How is this definition of greatest combo consitent with your claim that Brady would be the greatest if he passed Marino in rings and Super Bowl MVPs? If that's the measure, then won't you agree that Aikman is a better QB than Marino, Elway, Favre, and Manning? After all, Aikman's won three Super Bowls and was MVP in one of them." - Ralph

Brady and Moss have been together for less than 1 full season. They are on pace to break the single season records. Going by the numbers now there is no question Brady/Moss is the best combo of all time. That may change of course. I was defending asdf's assertion, which was, I quote:

"Only time will tell. But, so far, in ten games, Brady and Moss have to be considered the best quarterback / wideout match in the game at any time. And if they both stay upright, they will continue to prove it."

And yes I will agree Aikman was better than the other QBs. Because of the unique position of the quarterback as the leader of his team on the field, Ws are more important than stats for that position.

"Who was Moss's QB in Oakland? Who were his fellow receivers? How good was his O-line?" - Ralph

It isn't relevant. Assume Art Shell and the Raiders had that talent. Would you argue that that head coach and that ownership would produce identical results as Bell Belichick, Robert Kraft,and Scott Pioli have? Your argument forces you to give the absurd answer of yes. Just another example I can pull out of the current season, your belief that system is subordinate to talent is completely helpless to explain the downfall of the San Diego Chargers, a team that has almost identical talent as last year. Yet their coaching changed and they have gone from one of the NFL's elite teams to middle of the pack at best.

P.S: To believe that the Mavs have a prayer to win the west is a sad delusion. Dirk is still a choker extraordinaire, and they have improved in no way to take on the Spurs. The best they can hope for is a loss to San Antonio in the Western Conference Finals.

I was listening to Brady today on the local yokal sports talk radio program. The a-holes who do the morning show (who are good, but are sackless weasels) were on him about the 'score' thang. His contention was that (as allowed by the coaching staff) he plays until the final play of the fourth quarter and will continue to score as long as he's able to. Points notwithstanding.

(There's a reason he's a stud and a winner.)

His counter to the talk weasels was that he has only had ten games with Moss, Welker and Stallworth and every play they are still working on being as good as they can be (do you think he's savoring having great receivers to throw to?).

And his indusputable logic was that if they're in a game and the score is a touchdown difference, they need to know what they need to do to win those types of games.

Gentlemen, we are witnessing professional sporting excelllence the way it was meant to be.

Sure. Because tossing wide-open TDs to Moss and Co. in a 40-point blowout teaches them exactly what they need to know to win a tight game down the stretch.

Exactly. Now you're finally getting it.