ATBNG

You went 2-4 picking sides. I went 1-2. At least I have the dignity not to go looking for someone to say "I told you so" to. Given all that God stuff in your signature, shouldn't I expect better? What's wrong with you?

Cancer is a devastating illness, but suggesting that the federal government is "pure evil" for proposing a 1% cut in its research funding is hyperbolic nonsense. You can't have government pay for everything, unless you want to live out Marx's vision.

For what it's worth, I like the Bills tomorrow as well. Good value there.

Not with you. I don't trust you, since you're all talk when you're right or prior to the games, but you ignore results that you predicted poorly as if they never happened. I recall a promise to "revisit" the thread last time when I suggested that Cleveland might be a good play against Baltimore in week 3 and you insistently suggested otherwise, and we got nothing but crickets after Cleveland covered easily. That ruined your credibility in my view. I'll bet the game with someone I can trust - my bookie.

Pittsburgh is a stone cold lock this week. They win easily. Also like the Titans.

Agreed with the above. James has gotten plenty of touches (maybe too many) and he can't find the end zone. McGahee is the more valuable fantasy player.

I think you're very sane. I'd start Young. Denver is going to slog it out on the ground, and McNair is not a safe bet to finish the game. McNair also hasn't put up big numbers. Teams have been roasting Houston this year (throw out last week because Leftwich couldn't walk), Tennessee is at home, Young is healthy and I expect a big game from him tomorrow. Young also should have the most rushing yards of the three for what it's worth.

The title of this thread would seem to describe the opposite of the text's argument. Three negatives = a negative. Stats don't mean that much. David Carr is having a fabulous statistical year because his bad team has dug themselves into a huge hole four times and he's spent the second half chucking it. It's nice to see the improved accuracy, but he's still not averaging enough yards per pass play to say that that improved accuracy is meaningful. The improved accuracy has seemingly come with a price in terms of scoring (.87 TD passes per game versus 1.6) and yards gained (40% less in '06 per game).

Dallas doesn't have an official offensive coordinator for what it's worth. Obviously Parcells is going to switch up the playcalling when he switches from a pocket passer to a smaller, more mobile throw on the run type guy. This can look effective when the move is made in the middle of the game since the Giants spent most of their time preparing for Bledsoe. I think you're giving way too much credit to Parcells for that strategem, and three interceptions in a half isn't what anyone would call a success. We'll get a better sense of Romo this weekend. I can't see how anyone would say anything other than "the jury is still out" at this point.

Yes. I think the Gates/Maroney guy is getting the better of the deal. Johnson's banged up and that offensive line is not what it was last year.

So, here are my options: I need to pick a second wideout: Donald Driver or Reggie Brown I need a flex player, which can include a backup quarterback. This is a six point TD pass league with double scoring for over 50 yard TD's, so usually it's a no-brainer to play a second QB when in doubt. This week I have doubt. Dillon, Herron, Frye, Brad Johnson, or Driver/Brown. Leaning towards playing both wideouts.

Good preview Lori. Enjoyed reading it. I think that Chad Jackson is going to start at WR this week. I have a hunch that they're using Troy Brown as a slot guy only this week, perhaps because they plan to use him in some of their nickel/dime packages since the Bills go four wide more often than most. They may feel Brown is better suited to cover either Reed or Parrish (if he plays). Losman making his reads on third down is going to be a critical part of the game; he should have a winning matchup somewhere since the secondary is thin, banged-up and could be missing some of its speed guys. Warren is playing very, very well as you noted. He should receive Pro-Bowl consideration if he keeps playing as he has. I think he has benefited greatly from having Vrabel as the outside linebacker on his side. They have had a lot of issues with field goals, but Gostkowski's kickoffs have been outstanding. Between Gostkowski and Miller (who is just terrific inside the NE 45 and closer), they have been establishing field position in their favor all season. It's quite an underrated aspect of the game, and is a big part of why they are 4-1 despite not really lighting up the stat sheets so far. I'd expect Maroney to get more carries than Dillon. He's at least established himself as 1A to Dillon's 1B at this point. Have fun at the game!

The "Butters" episode was one of my favorites. His Mom tells Butters to play detective and follow his Dad around so she'll know her anniversary present ahead of time, and he ends up going to see "Fisting Firemen 3" before going to a bathhouse. Butters "detective" report to his Mom after that was an all time classic. To me, the best episode from start to finish was the J-Lo one. That was a tour de force.

I think Denver is very, very good. I'd put them second. They just have a lot of the little things besides the great defense - namely, good coaching, versatility, two dependable receivers, and good special teams with a money kicker. That defense though is spectacular. It's scary to think that Chicago's may be better. Philly is flying high right now, but they've had a very easy schedule and have a lot of holes. I don't think they're even in the top five (Seattle, New England, San Diego). Colts have done well to start undefeated, but they have a ton of flaws that I imagine won't get better. I can't see them winning a tough road game in the playoffs.

Sure! 1. Teams that come off back to back dominant performances historically do not lay the lumber in game 3. The league is too good. This is why I'd be wary taking Chicago as well. 2. Divisional home dogs are always worth a look. In this case, I think that the Browns have a ton of value at +7. Obviously they're going to have a rabid crowd behind them based on the Ravens' history. 3. The Raiders are atrocious up front. They have the worst NFL offensive line that I have ever seen. Their quarterbacks turned over the ball six times. They were travelling cross country before a bye week against a team with its home opener. They used a backup rookie QB. In closing, 28-6 is about what I expected. Ravens didn't move the ball very well, especially if you discount the last drive. 4. I'm not convinced that the Ravens are that good. They're old, they're relying an awful lot on some guys that seems to get hurt every year and I don't think they have a lot of depth. They're a team that I expect to get worse as the season goes on. Their easy schedule so far is helping drive the perception that they're a top tier AFC team. 5. Most importantly, 94% of the public's wagers so far has been on the Ravens, yet the line has moved a half point. 94% would typically move a line 3-4 points if it were 94% of the total money wagered. That tells me that there are some heavy hitters in with the 6%. Anytime the public is all over a game and the line doesn't move, the other side is where my money goes. Obviously anything can happen, and Cleveland is a very flawed team, but games like this are why bookies don't take public transportation.

I love Cleveland this week. I think they win that game outright, but I'll take the 7 point head start.

Putting your money in the hands of Daunte Culpepper is a daunt(e)ing task. This is one brutal week for suicide. I think I like Indy if most of their guys are playing, but my eyes are on the injury list. I wouldn't touch Washington at any rate.

I often look at one point and say it's a horrible gambling week; then two days later I like 10 games. I usually only play three...maybe 4. I think Carolina is easy to defend without Smith. He makes so much of their offense and special teams go. Their offensive line is well below average. They look like an 8-8 team to me. There's precedent from 2004 when they were 7-9 off an amazing Super Bowl run. Minnesota is a home dog off a road win; always good. I'm high on the Vikings too this season since I think Culpepper and Tice were great subtractions and Hutchinson is one of the ten best players in all of football. I love the Vikings Sunday. GB - well, I'm starting to share your concern because it looks like the line move is being driven towards NO by real money. Perhaps it is best to avoid The Brett Favre Adventure these days. I hate to say it, but the Jets looks attractive at +6. New England is going to be perceived to be "angry" but that's always an overplayed angle; Jets are another home dog off a road win and they're underrated. As does SF at +3. They beat St. Louis twice last year, Nolan is pretty solid and I think the Rams losing McCollum is big.

Yep. I like the Packers, Vikings, and Jaguars. Love points at home early in the season.

I agree. They're taking an intelligent, insightful and technical approach and it couldn't sound fresher. I think it is very bad for ESPN that they followed their new crew with these guys. It shows how stupid an idea it was to put Theismann and Kornheiser together as some sort of dream team. Theismann should have been sacked and Kornheiser is going to ruin a lot of the goodwill PTI and his writing career has built up for him because he's just not a football guy.

7 sacks. This is one terrible offense. Gallery is making Mandarich look like a steal.

That's not an apt analogy Kelly. A husband and wife have taken public vows that promise not to do such a thing. Though not illegal, it is pretty clear that there has been an ethical violation by the cheating party. The same would go for a couple that wasn't married if they have an explicit agreement to be faithful to one another and one broke the agreement. The collective bargaining agreement does not say it is wrong for a team to pick up a cut player from its upcoming opponent to soak him for information. Even if that's all they did, there is nothing unethical about it. It's part of the game. Teams devote a ton of resources to figuring out what their opponents are going to do on game day. This is only being judged here because it was the Patriots that grabbed an ex-Bill. The truth though is that Smith's getting waived assuredly has everything to do with his (lesser) abilities as a receiver and the current state of the Patriots roster. Between Brown, Faulk, Andrews and Hobbs they have a lot of depth among returners. With Gabriel and Jackson out, the team needs Childress more than Smith to be on the field in their three receiver sets or if Brown or Caldwell gets hurt. It's about football, and not who's going to heaven.

Bruschi's inactive.

He wasn't possibly wronged in any way, shape or form. Smith was an unsigned NFL player that was claimed on waivers. He reported to his new team. He was then cut from his new team. This is a perfectly standard transaction in the collecting bargaining agreement that management and players have. This happens all the time. Tom Jackson tried this argument in 2003 ("They hate their coach") and the team won 34 of its next 37 games and two rings. If he's such a "dirt bag," why do his players give such an effort for him? Why has the organization been so successful? Why are his players, coaches and managers so loyal? Do you do your best work for someone that is professional or for someone that is a scumbag? On the other hand, don't you want Levy to also play proverbial chess? As a Buffalo fan, when it comes down to cuts do you want him making his evaluation on the basis of a player's ability or how nice a guy he is?

The premise that New England effed with Smith's career and season is laughable. If he's good enough to play in the league, another team will pick Smith up. End of story. Do you know how many journeymen there are in this league? There are dozens of guys out there that are sitting on the NFL roster bubble at any given time and end up playing for three or four teams in one season. There's also this possibility that maybe the Patriots actually wanted to see what Smith had, but he wasn't as good as they thought, or he didn't show them what he needed to in practice, or he turned out to be a misfit for their system. He's never been more than a fifth receiver/return man on Buffalo, he has two years experience with your squad and now this year he wasn't good enough to make Buffalo! Why is there an expectation that he would stick with anyone? The moral outrage being expressed here couldn't be more misplaced in the context of what people should have moral outrage about. If Levy/Jauron had picked up Childress after the Pats cut him last week, there would have been a two page thread on why this regime is already intellectually superior to the Donahoe/Mularkey one, and there would have been none of this ethical analysis.