You're right, the Bills should have picked Peyton Manning in 1998. They've been so insistent that they didn't want him.

QBs fail for a lot of reasons and I bet quite a few of the those on your list could have been at least very good in a better situation. Except for Flutie and Bledsoe. They would suck anywhere.

I'll post again when I compile my list of all of the QBs in the league since 1998 who haven't been Peyton Manning.

The real question is whether Jared Allen or another NFC North DE can break the season sack record this year. Right now, 3 of the top 6 sack leaders in the entire league have played the Packers and owe at least half of their total to the Packer tackles and Rogers. Add to that two games against the Lions' rookie or Culpepper and a good season in general and I think it's entirely possible.

Jared Allen has 6.5 right now and if he gets 1 per game plus another 4.5 on Nov. 1st against the Packers on Nov. 1st (not unlikely because the tackle situation isn't going to get better), that puts him at 22. Just 1/2 shy of the record. Maybe they can put him in on offense and Favre can lay down for a free sack just like he did to give it to Strahan.

There is definitely a difference between a WR looking for pass interference and Tom Brady begging for a flag. On almost any defended pass play, there is some degree of pass interference. You can see that from the list of rules in the Charles Woodson paragraph. When the receiver asks for the call, it's because he thought that the defender crossed the line to gain an advantage.

The Brady call was entirely different because he didn't think the opposing player took an illegal advantage (like if he or his linemen were calling for offsides), he wanted a flag because he thought someone was trying to hurt him. This makes it much more like a soccer player flopping and whining about it. And if there's one thing we Americans don't tolerate, it's soccer.

The call didn't happen because a WR juked a DB out of his soul and the back had to grab or because the only way to keep an end from Brady was to tackle him. It didn't happen for any competitive reason. The call was made because Brady got hurt last year and all of Boston was really, really sad about it and it can't happen again. Even accidentally.

Thanks for the judgment call polls. I think this should be interesting.

The Texans OPI brings up an interesting question. Even if the letter of the law upholds the call, (assuming Kubiak is right) can we judge based on that if the actual application of the rule is inconsistent? Is this really a big deal because people are now accustomed to rule enforcement favoring vertical passing?

On a side note, Matt, how much enjoyment are you getting from the GB/MIN drama fest? As a Bears fan, I think it reminds me of the cartoons when the two main characters get in a big fight over a chick and the cool outsider comes in and takes her out while they're fighting on the floor.

I really like this guy.

Ok, so whether or not the ball moves is a judgment call but also whether the rule should be applied (that is, whether he had established possession when his two feet touch or if he needed to maintain that to and through the ground) is also a judgment call. Whether or not the play was replayed was also a judgment call.

Rules are nice, but anything more complicated than offsides requires a judgment call at some level. We can and should question the judgment of the officials. They aren't trained and paid to best memorize the rule book, but because through experience, training, mental ability and personality they are better capable of all necessary judgments than those applying for their jobs.

When people disagree, it's necessary to question those judgments. If you completely eliminate the judgment aspect of refereeing a game, the Zebra report will always be incomplete.

I suggest that you break down the questionable plays and identify where the judgment came into play (in this case, whether he established possession on two feet or if he was going to the ground and so on) and then use a poll (experts or just all of us losers) to see what our collective judgment has to say about it. If a vast majority disagreed with the judgment, then I say there's a chance it was a bad call (especially when indisputable evidence is necessary).

My $.46.

I would like. Thanks.

Matt, you seem really passionate about this.

The ticket prices may be the scapegoat, but time also figures into cost. Your $20 for 10 example shows it well, you have to buy more and plan ahead to get a decent price like anything else. A gallon of nacho cheese and pallet of chips costs less per serving than stadium nachos, but it's not the same thing.

This week, the cheapest non obstructed view Brewers tickets were $20 and they're no longer available. Remember, baseball is competing against TV, movies and video games. Everyone who went to see Transformers got to see the same piece of crap whenever it was most convenient to go and they didn't have to plan it weeks ahead of time. In order to get low priced tickets, they would have to see an inferior team at time less convenient for most people (hence a lack of demand).

Getting to a ballgame really does require more time and money than your argument concedes. Especially for people who don't live close to a team, know the city and parking situation well, want to see top notch competition and have jobs and kids to coordinate.

That said, I don't whine. I just don't go.

Wait. Have you seen his commercials advertising ripoff rent-to-own "your family deserves it now" crap? It is exactly the type of business, like payday loans, that keep poor people poor and its entirely unconscionable that he use his credibility to shill for them.

At least payday loans can be used for food. He's putting people in high interest debt for Wiis and TVs. I understand he does a lot in the community, but there's no excuse for that.

I've yet to understand exactly what the hangup is. Can you explain what part of the DVR service violates the patent if not all DVRs do?

Thanks.